Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday the majority of hon. members’ speeches were about the farmer and his problems. Speaking in this Committee this morning I should like to put certain ideas to the fanners of our country. I should like to do so in a spirit aimed at obtaining their co-operation, because the Government is able to help, but the Government cannot save the situation singlehanded, and we must save agriculture for the sake of South Africa.

The South African rate of population growth is among the highest in the world and it is a known fact that approximately 90% of our arable land is already being cultivated. In 1982, with a population of 25,5 million people in South Africa, the amount of arable land per capita available was 0,51 hectare. According to a projection, only 0,32 hectares of arable land per capita will be available in 17 years’ time, in the year 2000, whereas 0,4 hectares per capita is regarded as necessary to provide the nation with essential food. This is truly a challenge to agriculture in South Africa.

One thing was very clear from the 16 speeches made in the Committee yesterday, and that was that there is great concern about the present and future position of agriculture in South Africa. Strangely enough, however, the concern about agriculture is not so much that the industry would not be able to discharge its responsibility to the population of the country as a whole. No, the concern is in respect of the ability of the practitioners of the industry, the farmers, the entrepreneurs, to remain in control while agriculture in South Africa passes through one of the most difficult phases ever experienced.

The drought, crop failures, poor marketing conditions, high interest rates and his production costs are making exceptionally heavy demands on producers, and it is no wonder that under such circumstances the producer will begin to cast around for sources of assistance. No wonder, then, that almost every speech made in the Committee yesterday contained representations for a greater or lesser degree of State aid to the agriculturist.

Just as the agriculturist has an obligation to the State, the State has an obligation to the farmer, because every Government in every country must necessarily make the remuneration of its people one of its top priorities. I need not motivate this latter statement for an intelligent audience such as is gathered together in this Committee. As far as the Government is concerned, I do not believe that it has ever happened in the past that a South African Government has given its farmers aid programmes as comprehensive as those it is granting at present.

We say that the State has to undertake various programmes. We ask that the State should step in. We ask that the State should provide financing. We ask that the State should regulate matters. We also ask that the State should exercise control. I now ask how much of our independence we are prepared to sacrifice in the process. This is a serious question which every farmer in the country, and agriculture, will have to answer for themselves.

Modern agriculture is characterized by increasing commercialization, and in the course of one generation the South African agriculturist has been confronted with a series of changed circumstances that have made very heavy demands on his adaptability and management potential. In the process increasing quantities of inputs are used, and purchased inputs are replacing self-produced inputs. Therefore the farmer is being exposed to commercial risks to a greater extent. Proper planning and control in the industry is therefore becoming just as important as in any other business enterprise.

A highly market-orientated level of business management is required of the modern farmer, and those who do not comply with these requirements experience an inability to carry on with farming. In such a case economic forces dictate that they have to bid farewell to farming.

†The biggest challenge agriculture will have to face in the future will undoubtedly be the efficient integration of business principles into farming practices. If this is done, it will inevitably lead to a careful application of our natural resources, the keeping of farming records, an analysis of the farming industry, sensible planning, the elimination of uneconomic labour, mechanization and more realistic land prices. Success in farming will increasingly depend on the extent to which the farmer, as the manager of his enterprise, succeeds in optimally combining the available production factors, namely soil, capital, technology and labour. Hit-and-miss methods can no longer be tolerated.

*I have a strong suspicion that due to their background, experience and predelictions, our farmers are more inclined to give more attention to the practical and technical aspects of their farming than to sit struggling with figures in their offices. However, present circumstances compel us to make the ledger and the calculator an integral part of farming. I am sorry to sound as if I am preaching, but the hon. the Minister has made me responsible for the administration of, inter alia, the Agricultural Credit Act, and it is a privilege to do this work. However, this brings me into contact every day with the hard reality of farmers who are in financial difficulties, too often due to poor financial planning and management. I could mention innumerable examples of how farmers misuse hire purchase transactions; how farmers pay too much for land; how farmers purchase land on the basis of short-term financing, even using overdrawn bank accounts. Often our farmers are slow to make use of research results. They are often slow to change farming patterns to adapt to new circumstances. There is also a slowness to withdraw marginal land and use it for other purposes. Our research institutes are producing wonderful results, and in this regard one need only read the reports of the Department of Agriculture. I wonder how many of our farmers read the annual report made available by the department. Those documents contain case studies whereby the department has proved that by making minor adjustments and restructuring land usage, the financial position of farmers can be transformed. I appeal to our farmers to be very careful in their financial planning. The times demand it. However, I also wish to appeal to that extension piece of our farmers, the co-operatives, to be very careful in respect of their credit policy too. We can so easily smother our farmers with credit, and I am sorry to say that some of our farmers are indeed becoming smothered by credit.

What about the State? Let us search our own hearts. The programmes we are undertaking to keep the farmers on their land—a great deal was said yesterday about the preservation of our rural population—are to a very large extent aimed at keeping farmers on their land. However, this cannot always be economically justified. In many instances it is a sociological programme. Our drought relief measures—I shall come back to this again later—are flexible and adaptable. Various hon. members on this side on the House have suggested that we should look at our phase 5 drought relief scheme. We are making such enormous amounts available to farmers by way of loans that it is doubtful whether some farmers will find it possible to repay this burden of debt at a later stage. Accordingly one asks oneself whether one should not amend the scheme in time before a farmer is smothered by the credit granted to him. Should we not warn the farmer in good time that he cannot go further and that in addition, the State cannot provide him with any further assistance? I know that the S.A. Agricultural Union is carrying out new planning. We like to co-operate with them and we are open to proposals in this regard. We shall definitely have to investigate this particular matter very thoroughly.

I wish to repeat my plea to our farmers to make use of research results that are available. As far back as 1699 Jonathan Swift said—

That is just as valid today. I believe that our farmers have the necessary ability and faith. We of the ministry would like to strengthen that faith and ability on the part of our farmers.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon. the Deputy Minister in this very important debate which is at present in progress. As we have already heard since yesterday, agriculture is of primary importance to a country. A country with a poor agricultural industry has a hard time.

I should also like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister, as well as their predecessors, for everything that has already been done for the farmer in these difficult years. I also want to thank the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister for the visit they paid to the North West. There they were able to see what these farmers are made of, that they are still full of courage and fighting spirit. These farmers are also grateful to the State for the aid that has been granted to them.

Allow me, too, to take this opportunity to convey thanks to the Treasury and to the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism for a grant to the wool industry to promote wool in this country. Approximately 30 000 farmers are going to benefit by this. This is also a matter for which I made a plea last year. Apart from everything wool means for our trade, it also helps to create a future for so many farmers. I want to repeat my thanks for this allocation.

Today I want to refer to one of the key points in the rural areas as regards keeping the family farm—this was already discussed yesterday—the small businessman, in the rural areas. The hon. the Deputy Minister also referred to the agricultural co-operatives. I doubt it is possible to estimate at its true worth the contribution made by agricultural co-operatives in rural areas and the role they play there, particularly during the drought of the past five or six years in the North West. Agricultural co-operatives play an extremely important role. The agricultural co-operatives serve as a link with the State or the Land Bank to provide the farmer with credit. The agricultural co-operative is always ultimately responsible for the carry-over debt or the credit to which the hon. the Deputy Minister has also just referred. The purposes for which the agricultural co-operative was actually established, was, however, to deal with the collection and marketing or processing of the farmer’s products, and this has also been undertaken on a continuous basis by the agricultural co-operatives. During the past few years many farmers have been kept in the rural areas with the aid of local agricultural co-operatives. I have no hesitation in saying this. I think, too, that one would be justified in saying that it very seldom happened that the agricultural co-operatives in the North West suffered adverse consequences as a result of the credit they gave.

However, agricultural co-operatives are also being faced by the problem of, and are in conflict with, the increasing or growing financial needs—and the reasons for this are well-known—that are also pushing up the farmer’s costs. Unfortunately it is not always the large-scale farmer who takes shares in the co-operative, but it is not always possible to impose the pressure of the tremendous share capital from which the co-operative has to obtain its first funds on the farmer who is starting out, the young farmer and the average farmer. Moreover, the determining of dividends in accordance with the old agricultural co-operative legislation did not serve as encouragement for people to take out shares owing to the restriction on the interest rates. In addition, co-operative shares are not very attractive since the shares are not placed on the market and their value remains constant.

The other resource of co-operatives is the rotating or deferred bonuses, and this, too, involves inherent dangers. The bonus may be kept back for a certain period, but at some stage it has to be repaid to the member, even if it is only at his death. If it is postponed for a period, the repayment of the bonuses may hit the co-operative in very difficult years such as the present drought years. For that reason I want to make an appeal in this connection today.

As we all know, the profit the co-operative makes goes back to the producer, the farmer, where it belongs. However, it then becomes taxable. I do not know whether the profit which can be converted into reserves, constitutes an astronomical sum which can have such an effect on the Treasury that it has to be taxed. What happens now? At the end of the financial year the agricultural cooperative first has to make provision for administrative costs. Then there is the principle that any remaining profit has to go into the farmer’s pocket. As a result there is no opportunity to build up the necessary reserves so that subsequently the co-operative will be able to stand on its own feet and handle the greater demands made of it. I therefore want to ask whether consideration cannot again be given to excluding agricultural co-operatives from income tax. If this cannot be done, I want to ask that other ways be found to supplement the capital funds of co-operatives, bearing in mind the important role they play in the rural areas.

There are a few more matters I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention. I have already mentioned that marketing is one of the primary functions of co-operatives. I now want to refer in particular to the meat farmer in the small stock farming region. Problems have arisen in the marketing of small stock, particularly during the past year. This is owing to extraordinary pressure from the karakul industry, which has collapsed. This pressure is not really going to decrease in the future, because those karakul ewes are being replaced by Dorper ewes that can supply the market in tum. I have no objection to that. Marginal areas are frequently used for something else, and the first kind of farming that is jeopardized is sheep farming. This even happens in regions where fruit is cultivated. As a result the marketing policy in connection with small stock will have to be investigated.

Today the red meat industry is a major industry in our country. Red meat is being sold, but it is not being marketed properly. One can almost say that there is speculation in this market. One finds that in the course of a single week the prices vary between R1 and R1-50 per kilogramme. The same farmers that run the risk and incur the input costs are experiencing price differences of up to R30 per slaughter lamb for lambs of the same quality and weight. I feel that particularly at the present time our meat trade has an important role to play. I am not convinced that our meat trade always plays the game in assisting the farmer out of this dilemma. We simply have to overcome these problems. I believe that it will rain again and that we shall be able to produce again. Unfortunately I do not have the time to deal with the matter of meat prices in detail. I have already said that meat prices sometimes vary by R1 and more per kilogramme in the course of one week. The criticism levelled at the Meat Board by the retail and wholesale meat dealers is that the floor price is not lowered to enable butchers to purchase the meat more cheaply. Under the circumstances I want to ask the dealers to lower their profit margins as well. We know that consumers will purchase the meat if they can only get it a little more cheaply. We do not intend to price ourselves out of the market.

My time has almost expired and I should now like to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister in connection with planning for long-term drought aid. As far as this planning is concerned, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether drought committees for districts and the central drought committees cannot be appointed in such a way that there can be uniformity in a district and a greater degree of streamlining. An investigation into homogeneous grazing areas and the carrying capacity of land is in progress. I should like to know how far this investigation has progressed. I want to ask that when the carrying capacity has been determined, it will be ensured that it will be determined according to the grazing capacity of each breed, because there are tremendous differences in this connection.

I also want to refer to rebates on roughage. When rebates are granted on roughage in most cases it is virtually unobtainable in drought areas. That is why I am asking that a higher subsidy for waterworks be considered so that the farmer can be more selfsufflcient as far as his feed requirements are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow the hon. member for Beaufort West. What was particularly interesting, was that the hon. member levelled criticism in a nice way and put questions to the hon. the Minister in connection with the marketing of a product which is of great importance to him and his community. In recent years a considerable number of questions have been put in connection with the Meat Board and the way in which it performs its task. The idea has frequently been expressed on this side of the House, and from time to time by hon. members on the opposite side of the House, that the Meat Board should become more marketing-orientated in regard to the part which it plays and that it should give less thought to control and more thought to the expansion of the market for the product for which it is responsible. From time to time, too, reference was made to the fact—I shall come back to this again later today—that there are business undertakings in the meat industry that conduct their business in such a way that to an increasing extent it seems to us as if there are monopolies; that there are cartels in the industry and that those cartels are acting in a way that is detrimental to the producer as well as the consumer. I think the experience of the Meat Board during the past few weeks confirmed once again the need to take a penetrating look at this specific aspect of the meat industry. I shall have more to say about this later.

I was particularly pleased to hear the hon. the Minister announce that the Government would cause a White Paper to be published next year. It is necessary to have an agricultural policy. I assume that behind the scenes there is such a policy, but this policy should be spelt out so that everyone can see precisely where we are going and so that all interested parties can make a contribution to the application of that policy. One does not really like to repeat one’s own words, but in 1981 I said (Hansard, col. 3518)—

The hon. the Minister who was then responsible for the portfolio advanced quite a few reasons as to why an agricultural policy could not be spelt out, for example, changeable weather conditions, a changeable market, etc. I am pleased to learn now that this hon. Minister has decided to give attention to this aspect. We appreciate this.

Another aspect I also wish to refer to quickly, is the indication which the hon. the Deputy Minister gave that he was going to give his attention to the administrative side of agriculture, to the bookkeeping system and everything that goes with it. In the past we on this side of the House—the hon. the Deputy Minister will perhaps remember that I also referred to this, probably two to three years ago—spoke about this specific need in agriculture. Consequently I am pleased to hear that something is now going to be done about it.

While we were listening to the debate up to now it was very clear to us that the drought is making a great impact. Almost every speaker referred to it directly or indirectly. However, I want to put it to hon. members that not all the problems in agriculture are attributable to the drought. The drought has, as it were, aggravated the weaknesses in the industry and in that way of course emphasized them. If one examines the agricultural industry itself, one sees that there are certain problems which should have been examined in the past. I want to refer to a few of these problem areas. Firstly, it is a fact that areas which should never really have been ploughed are being cultivated. For example, there are certain areas in the Western Transvaal, in the Free State and also elsewhere in South Africa in which extensive farming is best, but in which, owing to economic circumstances, the fixed price of maize for example and other circumstances, farmers in those areas have ploughed and sown, although this should never have been done. In terms of a future agricultural policy we should like to see those things being rectified.

Reference was made to the fact that the abattoirs have been situated in areas far removed from the production areas, close to and around the cities, which results in the incurring of tremendous expenses in conveying livestock and bruising which also occurs because of that, and other problems which from an economic point of view cannot be justified in the long run.

I hope that the hon. the Minister will give attention to this aspect, although one must also accept of course that an abattoir costs many millions of rand, and that it is not something which can simply be done away with. What I do want to ask the hon. the Minister, is to devote more attention in future to existing rural abattoirs which are at present being systematically eliminated, largely as a result of the high cost of renovating them. In this respect we ought to take another look at the policy of the Abattoir Commission, for I am truly afraid that if abattoirs, for example the one at Worcester—and I assume that there are others as well—were to be closed for these reasons, so that slaughter cattle would once again have to be brought to the cities, that would merely be aggravating the problem.

There is of course another problem in agriculture, namely the planting and cultivation of crops on such a scale that today we have surpluses of certain products, while there are shortages of other products. In this respect I am referring to the fact that vineyards have been planted in areas which are in fact excellently suited to the cultivation of lucerne and other fodder crops. The result of this is that there is a surplus of one product, while there is a shortage of another; in this case of course stockfeed. It is not only the case in the times of drought, but also under normal circumstances that there is a tremendous shortage of lucern. This is of course the result of the policy of planting vineyards, while the original intention was that lucern was to have been cultivated in those areas.

There is another problem to which I wish to refer. This is the lack of the proper provision of information and statistics to the boards that have to plan for the various subdivisions of agriculture. In this respect one need only refer to one example. Possibly one could in fact criticize the Meat Board owing to many things which it omitted to do. However, I wish to put it to hon. members that organization cannot possibly do its work if it does not obtain the necessary information. In this case I have to level a word of criticism at the farming community itself. In recent months we have noted that there are quite a number of cases of farmers who made erroneous information available to the board. Not only has this been the case in the recent past, it has probably been happening during the past few years, or even more. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to reply to a few of the speeches made by hon. members so far. I want to begin by replying at once to the speech of the hon. member for Wynberg. Of course, we had thought that he had said goodbye to agricultural debates in this House. However, I am pleased to see that he is back and that he has also participated in this debate. As his party’s former chief spokesman on this matter, the hon. member asked certain questions which were rather sensitive, as we have come to expect of him. Some of the hon. member’s questions showed his concern about some cartels which exist in the meat industry. I know which cartel he is referring to.

I just want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that a report has been submitted to us on the meat industry as a whole, an industry which has also been investigated by the Jacobs Committee, of course. The report is being studied at the moment by the experts in this field. When this has been done, we shall formulate clearly our standpoints with regard to the meat industry. However, I do not think the problem of cartels is examined in detail in this report. I want the hon. member to take cognizance of this.

The hon. member also referred to certain surpluses and shortages in agriculture. This is one of the characteristics of agriculture in South Africa. We have this interesting situation in agriculture this year. This is one of the driest periods in the history of agriculture, and in spite of that, we have surpluses of certain products. We have surpluses of dairy products. There are mountains of these products. We also have meat surpluses. This is a peculiarity of agriculture. It is a problem one will have in agriculture, whether the climatic conditions be good or bad; there is always a shortage of certain products and a surplus of others. That is the way agriculture functions. When there are good rains and climatic conditions are favourable, the cows give litres and litres of milk. When it is dry, many of the grain farmers who do not have a cash flow on their farms decide to start milking. Then one has a milk surplus in spite of the drought conditions. This is the sort of situation one finds in agriculture. Because this is the way agriculture functions, it is extremely important that we should have the Marketing Act, because this Act essentially has a stabilizing effect on the surpluses and shortages which occur. I am pleased that I have received so much support, from hon. members in the Opposition parties as well, with regard to the Marketing Act. I shall come back to this later.

The hon. member also referred to the question of information. I really want to tell the hon. member that I think the availability of information in agriculture is adequate, even for the farmers.

I was referring to the lack of correct information on the part of the boards.

The boards now meet at an agricultural projection conference every year. This is a system which is used in most overseas countries. It is a system which is also implemented in Europe, where there are annual projection conferences. In South Africa, where all the boards make certain inputs, figures and other statistics are made available about the state of a particular industry at a particular moment and about future marketing prospects, and this is becoming a very important institution in this country. I think we have already held our second or third agricultural conference and we are going to hold another one this year. That information is extremely important, because it obviously means that the South African farmer has to be more market-orientated in his production. The days are past in South Africa when a man could plough his farm from end to end and plant maize or wheat, in the belief that there must be someone somewhere to market those products. I think this information should be conveyed to the South African farmer. I think the potential is there.

I come now to the hon. member for Beaufort West, who has just resumed his seat. The hon. member referred to agricultural co-operatives. He said this was a channel for financing through the Land Bank. I want to mention another very important aspect. I think one of the most important functions of agricultural co-operatives in future will be concerned with industrial development in the rural areas. This is expanding enormously. As the South African consumer becomes more sophisticated in the consumption of food, the food processing industry is becoming increasingly important. The agricultural co-operatives can now enter the private sector, because the new legislation on co-operatives has created greater possibilities for the co-operative movement to enter the private and the industrial sectors. One could have the situation, therefore, that many of these industries, which are still being established in the urban areas in the normal course of events, could be established in the rural areas instead. Driving all over the Free State and Transvaal, one sees that in respect of the milling industry, many of these industries have been attracted to the rural areas, especially to production areas which are also existing marketing areas; in other words, areas where one’s internal and external costs are as low as possible. This is attracting industries to the rural areas. So the co-operative has a very important role to play in this connection.

The hon. member also referred to the small stock marketing problem. He is afraid that the karakul industry may have an effect on the marketing of small stock. This is precisely where the importance of the control board, the organization controlling that industry, lies. When we saw what was happening, we found methods last year, by way of a measure which we took to prevent the collapse of the karakul market, of supporting the karakul market by means of a subsidy, so that instead of slaughtering the lambs for their furs, farmers could keep the lambs in order to market them at a later stage at the Maitland market. This was a great help, but at the same time, it is a good illustration of the way in which one sometimes has to support an industry. Not only the karakul industry was supported by this; our action had an effect on the marketing of small stock as well.

The hon. member is worried about the scheme of the Meat Board. If I understand him correctly, the hon. member is afraid that the small stock farmer or the farmer in the red meat industry will not receive his rightful share, because excessive profits are allegedly being made in the trade. If there is one scheme in terms of the Marketing Act which is absolutely marketing-orientated and which forms part of the so-called free market system, then it is the meat industry, because it functions on a floor price. So there is a minimum price for the farmer alone, and apart from that there is free bargaining on the hook.

There is a problem in the meat industry which concerns not so much the industry as the consumer. On the occasion of the schemes we initiated in order to get rid of surplus meat, we became very much aware of the ignorance of the South African meat consumer as far as prices are concerned. In the course of the scheme which we launched in December, private dealers succeeded, by means of advertising, in getting people to buy certain cuts at prices that were higher than they had been before the scheme was introduced. This happened because people were convinced by the advertising that they were buying bargains. The prices of these particular cuts rose so sharply that it was almost impossible for us to slaughter everything at the abattoirs.

I think it is important that the consumer in South Africa should also take cognizance of the trends in retail meat prices. He should make a study of meat prices when he goes to a butchery or supermarket. In other countries—the USA is a striking example—the retail prices in the meat industry are published daily for the benefit of the consumer. I believe that just as we publish the prices fetched by vegetables on our fresh produce markets every day, meat prices should also be published. The consumer should help to create greater bargaining potential, because then he will not have to pay more for meat than he has to.

Before I leave the meat industry, there is one thing I want to say in conclusion: It is possible, of course, to examine the scheme if the organizations in the meat industry believe this should be done. The Marketing Act provides for the introduction of a different scheme, so that particular circumstances can be taken into consideration. Of course, there are other possibilities as well within the provisions of the Marketing Act. After all, the Marketing Act is a very flexible Act.

I want to come now to the chief spokesman of the official Opposition, the hon. member for Albany.

†I think the hon. member made a very constructive speech and I want to thank him for it. I also want to congratulate him on his appointment as chief spokesman on agricultural matters.

I for my part want to thank the hon. member for his good wishes, especially in these very difficult times. The hon. member made an interesting speech. He said that ad hoc steps are being taken to solve the problems in agriculture and that long-term solutions should be sought. I agree with him. He said that we should stop treating the symptoms and that we should treat the causes. I agree with this as well. Long-term solutions should be sought for long-term problems, and that is exactly what the Government did when it introduced the long-term drought relief scheme. The Government has also introduced certain long-term measures to rationalize for example the canning industry. I think the hon. member is quite aware of that. However, it must be pointed out that agriculture is to a great extent subject to variables, some of which call for short-term assistance measures. In many cases these short-term measures although ad hoc often lead to long-term schemes.

*The hon. member for Albany also referred to the actions of the Jacobs Committee and to the maize industry. He said that if the price structure in the maize industry continued as it was at the moment, problems would be experienced. He referred to certain Nampo documents which he appears to have studied. The hon. member knows that I had very lengthy talks, lasting a full day, with this organization concerning its problems. We eventually agreed that the problems of the maize industry, like those of the fruit industry, would be referred to the Jacobs Committee. Hon. members may say that whenever we have a problem in agriculture, we simply refer it to the Jacobs Committee. But the Jacobs Committee is a very well constituted committee consisting of the best experts, including economists, that we have in agriculture and in South Africa. I want to add that once the Jacobs Committee has submitted a report and the report has been accepted, it will be my task and that of the Deputy Minister and the department to implement it in practice, and that is not always so simple. In any event, we came to an agreement with Nampo and it was referred to the Jacobs Committee, while special permission was granted to Nampo to nominate four of its members to the committee to make their input there. We hope to have a report by the end of August, and I hope to announce a maize scheme by that time which will find favour with the farmers. However, I want to add at once that the maize industry is a very old and important one and that one must be very careful not to tamper too much with its structure, because there are certain aspects of the industry which have grown with a particular scheme over the years, and now one must be very careful not to cause economic disturbances to a particular pattern. However, I think the Jacobs Committee will give proper attention to this.

While I am on the subject of the maize industry, I also wish to refer to remarks made by the hon. member for Parys in this connection, relating to an aspect which is rather sensitive. The hon. member requested that there should be a situation of trust between these producers’ organizations and myself. I agree with the hon. member, and I shall do everything in my power to create such a situation. In fact, I have already said in public, arising from the latest maize price, which has caused quite a commotion, that I recognize Nampo as the producers’ organization. Therefore I am prepared to negotiate with them on an on-going basis. I do want to say, though, that this confidence cannot come from one side only. It must come from both sides. I would greatly appreciate it if the conduct of Nampo would make it easier for me to create such a situation of trust.

While I am on this subject, I should perhaps say something about the import policy which the Government has approved in the light of the maize shortage in South Africa. Hon. members are aware of the fact that there has been speculation in the Press which has created the impression that the action taken by the Government will involve the State in great expense and unnecessary losses. An amount of approximately R3 million has been mentioned. I want to say at once that I do not know who the informant of this particular newspaper was. However, I think it is necessary to say that a specific import policy has been laid down. The Maize Board will be the agent of the Government in terms of existing regulations, because the Government has to bear the loss on the import programme, after all. It has been decided that imports will take place by way of tender. Therefore it is not being done by way of negotiation. Negotiation is a different method of purchasing. The chairman of the Marketing Board has been authorized by me to examine the tenders together with the administration of the Maize Board and to brief me from time to time, because I am the responsible Minister.

It has also been decided that the import programme will extend over a certain period. The reason for this is very simple, namely that one is faced with a very fluctuating tendency in the grain market. One may buy at a high price today and at a low price tomorrow. In fact, the latest tender we have called for is R11 lower than the tender price published in that particular newspaper.

A further decision has been taken, namely that we should see in the course of this import programme—one has to supplement shortages in certain industries, especially the livestock industry, from time to time—whether the potentially expensive imported maize cannot be replaced by alternative grains. Negotiations are being conducted in this connection. We have also had talks with the Maize Board to ascertain whether expensive maize imports cannot be reduced by importing grain sorghum. The only further remark I want to make at this stage, and then I shall leave the matter at that, is that we should wait and see what eventually becomes of the import programme towards the end of the next season. Then we shall be able to determine its value. I trust that there will be no further speculation in the Press concerning the so-called ineptitude or inefficiency of my department and myself. I am responsible to this House. R27 million has been appropriated to cover the losses resulting from the importation of maize. However, we intend to effect a saving on this R27 million. If speculation continues, however—I hope it will not—it is my responsibility to see to it that certain steps are taken. I may ask for the appointment of a Select Committee, for example. With that I conclude my remarks on the maize industry.

I come now to the hon. member for Vryheid, who, like the hon. member for Albany, referred to the meat industry. He referred to the slaughtering months that were approaching. I agree with him that these slaughtering months are creating great uncertainty and anxiety among our farmers. I assume that the slaughtering months will begin in August and September, just before the summer season. Then the fodder has been exhausted; no fodder is available; or if it is available, it is prohibitively expensive. Then the farmer is faced with the task of marketing his livestock.

I want to say that the Meat Board has played an extremely important role in respect of the whole drought planning situation. Because surplus livestock and marketing pressure made continuous negotiations with the Meat Board necessary, we got continuous effective action from the Meat Board. Since November last year, we have been trying by means of various schemes to dispose of surplus meat. These schemes did not work, however, as a result of the fact that we were unable to come to a proper agreement with the trade. But one learns from experience. The cold storage facilities became full to capacity and eventually we had 80 000 carcases on our hands. There was simply no room left for one more carcass. The result was that instructions in terms of permits could no longer be carried out. To combat this problem, we arranged for emergency slaughters at Krugersdorp, for example. This was mainly for grade 3 cattle from the drought-stricken areas, lean animals that would otherwise have died. They were not ready for the market. They were then slaughtered at Krugersdorp. To the best of my knowledge, 80 000 head of cattle have been slaughtered at Krugersdorp up to now. It has been done with a view to canning. Now everything is in tins and no longer in cold storage. In this way we have saved space there.

There have also been lengthy negotiations with the Meat Board and the trade. I personally spoke to the organized trade and told them that conditions in the meat industry were becoming chaotic. I said that if we no longer knew what to do with the meat, we would end up by having to export it at an enormous loss, and this would totally deplete the Stabilization Fund of the meat industry. Eventually we succeeded in designing a scheme in terms of which the trade was used by the Meat Board as an outlet for this frozen meat. I have a telex here in which the Meat Board tells me that the frozen meat has been virtually sold out. So the cold storage facilities are virtually empty. Therefore we should be able, with our normal slaughtering capacity, to accommodate the animals from the drought-stricken areas which are ready for the market.

I agree with the hon. member that the consumer is certainly prepared to eat more meat. What has actually happened in practice—and this is very interesting—is that the meat which had been in cold storage has now been moved to the housewife’s freezer. So there has simply been a change of cold storage facilities. We studied the market very well, and my latest information is that the slaughter on the hook is taking place normally.

I want to convey my thanks to the Meat Board on this occasion. We shall probably negotiate with them again. They play a very important role in resolving the problems which this drought is creating for us.

I come now to the hon. member for Ventersdorp. He apologized for not being able to be here today. He said that the drought plan was based on the farmer’s security. He also said, among other things, that security depended on the value of the land. He is particularly concerned about the fact that the land prices of the Land Bank are not always what they should be. The Land Bank assures us that it determines its land prices over a longer period. Therefore they are not subject to great fluctuations. Valuations remain fairly constant and are mainly based on the agricultural value of the land. This is basically the only method of determining healthy security for a borrower. However, the Land Bank assures me that it is giving very careful consideration to this aspect, which may prevent farmers from participating in aid schemes.

Several speakers referred to the general financial position of the farmer. This is a subject which was referred to throughout. I want to point out that one cannot always evaluate the financial position of the farmer merely by looking at the change in the price index. The hon. member for De Aar also mentioned this. I am referring to changes in the price index of farming requirements and of production prices. However, there are many other factors which also play a very important role and which should be taken into consideration before one can evaluate the financial position of the farmer. One should take into consideration, for example, the increase in the volume of agricultural production over a certain period. I believe I can say with great certainty that our average increase in the physical production of agricultural products in South Africa is approximately 3% a year. This is an achievement in the light of the production circumstances which prevail in South Africa. One would also have to divide the gross production by the 70 000 farmers in order to arrive at the average figure per farmer, although this figure is not always so accurate, perhaps. However, to evaluate the financial position of our farmers correctly on an overall basis, one will have to take account of three aspects. One will have to take account of the debt ratio, something which we admit has risen considerably of late. At the same time, however, land prices have also risen enormously, so that the financial position of the farmer has not really deteriorated in that respect. One should also have regard to the profitability of agriculture. Thirdly, one should have regard to the cash flow position, which in my opinion is one of the most serious problems we are experiencing in agriculture at the moment. Many farmers will tell one that they are extremely wealthy, but that they do not have any money. They have a lot of land, but they have an overdraft at the bank.

It is true that the debt ratio is much higher at the moment than it was years ago. I think this situation is being aggravated by the many short-term debts which farmers have. The liquidity position of farmers is not healthy. As far as the net revenue of the agricultural industry is concerned, it was R2 600 million in 1981. When one divides this figure by 70 000, one arrives at the amount of R37 000 per farmer. This does not seem bad and it compares very well with other parts of the world. The point I want to make is that these figures point to an important phenomenon in agriculture, namely the imbalance with regard to income. I think this is one of the greatest problems we shall have to contend with. To deal with this problem is a difficult matter. A predecessor of mine, Mr. Uys, said that the greatest depopulation of the rural areas took place during those good years when farmers were getting 20 shillings a pound for their wool. That was when the depopulation of the rural areas was at its height. The man with a lot of capital simply bought out the smaller farmer. Not only did he buy out the smaller farmer; he also caused a sharp escalation in land prices. Now one gets this kind of imbalance in agriculture. This has been investigated by several commissions. I think there have been four or five of them. Our shelves are full of reports of socio-economic investigations concerning the depopulation of agriculture. Several recommendations have arisen from these. Some of them have been implemented at enormous cost, including the legislation relating to population density which was piloted through Parliament by the present hon. Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries, who was Deputy Minister of Agriculture at that time. This was one of the recommendations of the Du Plessis Report, i.e. that we should see whether we could not improve the imbalance in agriculture by means of financing schemes.

We have certain instruments which we can use to help improve the financial position of the farmer, and especially of the average and small farmer. I want to refer to a few of these. The first is our agricultural co-operatives. I regret having to refer to the agricultural co-operatives again, but they are extremely important in agriculture. The way they are constituted today, and in terms of the provisions of the Act which regulates them, agricultural co-operatives are among the few financial institutions and business organizations in which the big farmer and the small farmer can compete with each other on a reasonable basis and on an equal footing. There is no differentiation between a small, an average and a big farmer. They buy fertilizer, seed and implements at the same price. There is collective bargaining. Therefore the co-operatives play an extremely important role.

Then there is our financing policy. Up to a certain limit, the Land Bank only finances certain farmers. The Agricultural Credit Division also finances certain farmers up to a certain limit only. We have this kind of instrument which we can use, but I am afraid that the financing instruments that have been available to us over the years are simply not adequate to correct this imbalance in agriculture, i.e. the enormous differences in units. I am reluctant to commit myself at this stage as to what the solution to this problem would be. All I am prepared to say is that if we want to counteract this situation in South Africa, we shall most probably have to take more drastic measures. These measures will most probably have to be taken by this Parliament. I do not think they can be measures which can be taken by a Minister alone. This will be one of the aspects which we shall have to examine in the White Paper.

The hon. member for Barberton also referred to the problems we faced in connection with land prices. He said that inflation, investment and the demand for land on the part of other organizations all had an effect on the rise in land prices. I think it is time we drew up some sort of land inventory in South Africa. However, I do not think this will be possible before we have completed our programme of land classification. This programme is a very complex and extensive one. We have made classifications, and the farmers know, for example, what an Avalon is. They know what a Westleigh is. They know what a Hutton is. However, we have not developed it to the point where it is available on the basis of individual farms. I am told that in Europe, a farm is given an index value upon classification; in other words, the one farm is 110, for example, and the neighbouring farm is 120. An index value is given to it, which is a much more effective and scientific method of determining land prices, and not only of determining land prices, but also of ascertaining the agricultural value of specific units. We have not yet reached that stage, but I believe that this is an ideal we are pursuing, and I hope, therefore, that we shall realize it one day.

The hon. member also stated his standpoint with regard to the Marketing Act. This is something which I particularly appreciate. In fact, the hon. member has been a member of the Wool Board, so that he understands this philosophy. Although we no longer belong to the same political party, if there is one thing on which we wholeheartedly agree, then it is the Marketing Act. If we cannot get along politically, therefore, at least we can get along as far as the Marketing Act is concerned. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ceres asked to be excused. He is absent at the moment, therefore. He spoke about the system of family farming in South Africa. I agree with the hon. member. To me, this is what characterizes South African agriculture. A sense of commitment to the land is a quality which one finds in the system of family farming. The children all grow up on the farm and therefore develop a love for the land. Over and above all the economic factors which we have to contend with in agriculture every day, commitment to the land is an extremely strong stabilizing factor in agriculture. Commitment to and love for the land give people the strength and enable them to survive droughts and to make the best out of agriculture. I encountered one of the finest examples of this when we visited the arid North-Western Cape. There I visited farms where it had not rained in four years. Hon. members have been told by the hon. the Deputy Minister that the debt ratio per sheep among those people is really impossibly high. However, they do not want to leave. They want to remain there because they love their land. In fact, they believe that it will rain again. AU they ask is to be helped with their debt so that they may remain there. If the farmers lost that quality, I believe that matters would be even more difficult for us, irrespective of economic factors. In fact, I wonder whether we could save agriculture if that happend. Agriculture derives its true character from this love which people feel for their land.

There is one thing which is regrettable. We have had wonderful organizations in agriculture. I am thinking, for example, of the Land Service Organization, which no longer appears to be so active. I do not know whether that organization is still functioning.

Yes, it still exists.

Mr. Chairman, I am told that the organization still exists. I must say, however, that I hear far too little about them.

It now falls under the Department of National Education.

Mr. Chairman, we hear far too little about the Land Service Organization. However, I understand that it now falls under the Department of National Education. [Interjections.] I believe though, that this organization should have its ties with the land strengthened again.

Several hon. members have also referred to the question of input costs in agriculture. This is a very important subject, of course. I believe it is one of the greatest concerns of farmers all over South Africa at the moment. After all, most farmers in this country know that it is not possible to recover their increased input costs from prices. In addition, of course, the development of agriculture has been such that it has to buy a much greater percentage of its inputs today. This figure has grown from 60% to 80% over the past 10 years.

I should like to demonstrate this fact in the light of a practical example. In the late forties and early fifties—to mention a good example—the grain-farmer could still provide his own tractive power. He produced his own fuel, as it were. This was the grass and the fodder which grew on his farm, and which he could feed his draught-oxen to enable them to draw the plough. So this tractive power was produced by the farmer himself.

It is interesting to examine the figures in this connection in order to see how the draught-oxen disappeared, to be replaced by a more mechanized system. The engineering industry began to enter agriculture. Sophisticated agricultural equipment was manufactured. Researchers demanded that better methods of cultivation be devised. What is the situation today with regard to mechanization in agriculture?

In 1950, the capital investment in machinery in agriculture was R214 million. The latest figure is R3 239 million, which represents an increase of 1 414%. This is the increase since 1950. This gives hon. members an indication of the enormous role played by inputs, partly as a result of the development in agriculture. We have the same situation in the chemical industry, for example. Methods of fertilization have changed and more sophisticated fertilizing methods have been introduced to increase production. Input costs have risen. It is alleged that the South African maize farmer fertilizes for a potential harvest of 18 million tons of maize a year. If we fertilized for 18 million tons this year, and we only get 4,5 million tons, hon. members will understand the predicament in which the unfortunate farmer finds himself.

The point I want to make in connection with input costs is very important. I do not want to argue that we should reduce these inputs that are bought. The fact remains, however, that the more sophisticated one’s production systems become as a result of research programmes, the higher the risk. The inputs carry an inherent risk, and we shall have to find a solution to this problem in agriculture in South Africa. The first solution is not to look at input costs affecting agriculture with protected industries in mind. The hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism is investigating this whole situation at the moment. He has ordered an inquiry to quantify properly the input costs and the way they affect agriculture in the light of the protection policy, and his department is already taking certain steps in this connection. None of this will help, however. We shall have to find other methods. We shall have to consider building up our reserves and we shall most probably have to consider a system of comprehensive insurance, because the South African production circumstances are such that this may be more justified in a country such as ours. All these are aspects which we shall have to examine in future.

Mr. Chairman, on 24 June of this year a meeting is to be held by an organization calling itself ROEP. I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister is acquainted with this organization. I myself am not acquainted with the organization, but ROEP stands for “Red Ons Eensame Platteland”. From what I have heard from people who are going to attend this meeting and who come from virtually the length and breadth of the Free State platteland, the main point of discussion will be the protection of the abattoir industry in small rural towns. This morning I also received a letter containing the agenda of the Northern Cape Regional Development Association in which the hon. member for Kimberley South is asked, in accordance with a decision quoted here, to make representations in connection with the retention of small abattoirs. It is stated in this agenda that an urgent postponement is to be requested regarding the closure of abattoirs. The hon. member for Wynberg also referred to this briefly.

In 1967 the Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act was passed by this Parliament. In 1970 officials of the Department of Health and Welfare and the Department of Agriculture visited various local authorities and brought the provisions of this Act and the requirements set by this Act to their attention. As a result of these visits the larger local authorities in the controlled areas stated that if they had to meet these requirements they could not run the abattoirs themselves, with the exception of the abattoir in Cape Town. The abattoirs in the controlled areas were therefore taken over by the Abattoir Corporation.

At that stage it was also stated very clearly that the Abattoir Commission could not even consider taking over abattoirs in smaller centres in the foreseeable future. These smaller centres were also visited on occasion by the officials of the then Departments of Agriculture and Health, who spelled out the requirements set by the Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act. In judging whether such abattoirs were to be allowed to continue operating or not, at the time of their discussions with these people the officials had to take into consideration the guidelines set out for them in circulars sent to local authorities. I shall quote a few of these guidelines as they appear in the circulars—

These are the requirements set in the Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act—

These are the controlled areas—

This is the first guideline in terms of which the officials have to act. The second guideline reads—

One can consider what happens in practice when a smaller local authority wants to comply with the requirements. One finds that the Abattoir Corporation objects to better abattoir facilities being made available, and I am again quoting—

That is a nearby village—

The protection of the abattoirs in the controlled areas was therefore the idea behind the instructions given to the officials.

What options are open to a smaller rural local authority? Either the existing abattoir has to be closed down or major expenditure has to be incurred to enable it to meet the requirements laid down in the Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act, as interpreted on the basis of the guidelines by officials of the said department.

One can imagine the situation if an abattoir in a small, remote village is closed down. What happens? Livestock grazing before the very eyes of the residents in the town frequently has to be transported a distance of 100 kilometres or more to an abattoir offering centralized facilities. The slaughtered meat has to be transported back. I can continue with this entire chain of costs to prove that this creates an untenable situation.

If this is the case the result is that a butcher in such a rural village cannot stay in business. If such an abattoir is closed down and the butcher disappears from the rural areas then we shall be negating precisely, what we want to achieve namely, better hygiene in the slaughtering of animals, because then one will have the so-called “bush slaughterings” where there is absolutely no control at all.

My time is rapidly drawing to a close, but I should like to make a few brief suggestions as to how this state of affairs can be improved. Could the hon. the Deputy Minister not reconsider the standards which have been set in the Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act and the way they have been interpreted? Could the hon. the Deputy Minister not reconsider the standard plans submitted to the smaller local authorities to see whether a more economic utilization of slaughter space could not be achieved? Could the hon. the Deputy Minister not perhaps consider exempting the smaller local authorities from the requirement that they have to employ the services of consulting engineers? The hon. the Deputy Minister will know that for a specific small local authority, the required improvements would have cost R100 000 if the services of consulting engineers had been employed. However, when a private person improved that same abattoir so that it complied with the requirements, it only cost R20 000. I therefore feel that this aspect should be investigated.

In conclusion I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to take a stand today and to say that he is not in favour of abattoirs in small rural villages having to be closed down. There is a suspicion, which is frequently evident from the debates on these matters at, inter alia, congresses of the United Municipal Executive, that the department is not in favour of retaining this absolutely vital facility in the rural areas. In conclusion I want to say that the rural communities want to survive, and that the hon. the Minister should be sympathetically disposed towards us as regards this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I have decided to rise immediately and say a few words about this very important matter. When I was appointed to this post, it very soon became clear to me that we have a problem in this connection. Over the years we had decided as a result of reports of commissions …

Do you have no discipline on that side?

Order! Control of this debate is in the hands of the Chair. The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

We began with a process of rationalization in our abattoir industry, a process which is now fairly far advanced. On 1 November 1967 there were 381 public and 1 145 private abattoirs. At present there are 218 public and 120 private abattoirs, and, of course, the ten abattoirs in the possession of the Abattoir Corporation. I asked myself whether we had not allowed this process of rationalization to go too far. For that reason I gave instructions to the Abattoir Commission to draw up a report for me on the entire matter. I received a document containing a great deal of information. On another occasion I also said that I wanted a proper evaluation of exactly where we stood as regards every abattoir in the rural areas. A further report on this matter was delivered to me very recently, on 19 April 1983. When I received this report, a number of thing became clear to me.

In the first place it was clear to me that as far as our total slaughtering is concerned, we have made a great deal of progress in the process of rationalization, so much so that I think that after the opening of the Bloemfontein abattoir, more than 80% of all slaughtering will take place in improved, modern abattoirs. It is mainly concentrated in the large abattoirs. From this report it became clear to me that our problem lies with the small E abattoirs, as we call them. In certain parts of the country, for example in the Eastern Cape, very little has been done thus far to rationalize or improve abattoirs. In the rest of the Cape, too, there are a large number of these small rural abattoirs where nothing has been done as yet. The major problem is that small municipalities simply cannot afford to build abattoirs. After due consideration I decided to ask the Cabinet to postpone D-day. The decision to stipulate a D-day for the closure of abattoirs which do not comply with the standards, was a Cabinet decision. I have every confidence that I shall get the support of the Cabinet so that D-day can be postponed.

In addition, it has come to my attention that although the commission has standard plans which, in general, can be implemented far more cheaply than when consulting engineers are employed, there is a provision in the Cape Province, for example, to the effect that municipalities, even if they make use of standard plans, still have to appoint consulting engineers. We shall have to go into this as well. We shall have to do so in consultation with the province. My information is that consulting engineers push up the prices a great deal. The hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries, who handled this portfolio as Deputy Minister before me, will agree with me. We have many examples of costs being boosted by up to three times more than was necessary by consulting engineers.

It also transpired that many municipalities built abattoirs far larger than the slaughter capacity they required. I could mention innumerable examples of this. Why this happens, I cannot really say. I do have my suspicions but I do not want to spell them out here today. The fact remains that if a municipality builds too large an abattoir, one which provides three times the capacity the municipality needs, that abattoir will obviously have to operate at a loss. But what happens as a result? No municipality can compel its butcher to buy from it. The butchers may purchase their meat wherever they wish. I want to give an example. I opened an abattoir at Vredendal. It is a wonderful abattoir, but it is built for an output of approximately 100 units, whereas the requirement there is 30 units a day. Immediately after I had opened the abattoir, a meeting was held with the butchers and they told me they would like to support the abattoir, but it was cheaper for them to purchase their cattle at Maitland and transport them to Vredendal than to have them slaughtered there.

What happens then? The municipal abattoirs are operated at a loss. From whom is that loss recovered? It has to be recovered from the taxpayers. In addition, meat prices in the town rise. I wish to say here and now that I am not prepared to protect abattoirs that are built injudiciously by way of protective tariffs, other than in exceptional cases. Every small village has a right to have its own abattoir. However, nowadays when I receive such applications from small abattoirs, I consistently recommend that the municipality negotiate with the local butchers and ask them: Do you not want to take over the abattoir yourselves? We have found that the butcher himself can run an abattoir more efficiently and more cheaply than the municipalities. I have here case studies of improvements planned by a certain municipality which would have cost that municipality R120 000. That is a lot of money for a small municipality. That municipality then handed its abattoir over to its butchers for a nominal amount. For R20 000 the butchers made all the changes needed to comply with the provisions in connection with meat hygiene. One begins to wonder whether the so-called hygiene requirements are not being used as a pretext for erecting impressive structures.

I asked the department to give me a short summary of the basic hygiene requirements, and I should like to tell this House what they are. What are the basic hygiene requirements for a small abattoir? In such an abattoir, according to the requirements, suitable water under pressure has to be available in the pens, the abattoir building and in the cloakrooms and washrooms. I think that is a reasonable requirement. Food is being handled and one should at least have water to wash with. In all work areas where and when edible products are handled, hot water at a temperature of at least 82°C has to be available. An abattoir is a greasy place and one needs warm water there to wash with. I therefore feel that this is a reasonable requirement. Washbasins and sterilizers have to be provided at suitable points in work areas. I think that this, too, is a reasonable requirement. Equipment in abattoirs, such as carts, containers and everything else used, must be of sterilizable material. It is also stipulated that the people working there have to wear clean overalls. I do not have the time to discuss all the requirements. All it amounts to is that the basic requirements of hygiene anyone would apply in his own home, also have to apply in an abattoir.

Now we have taken a decision in this connection. Apart from the fact that I shall go to the Cabinet to have the relevant date extended and apart from the fact that I shall go to the provincial authorities to ask them to consider lifting their requirement in connection with consulting engineers, we have scaled down the standards in connection with the quantity of livestock that may be slaughtered at abattoirs. According to the new standards a municipality may, for example, erect a D8 to do the work of a C15 without there being any problems. We have also asked to be allowed to compel municipalities that want to build new abattoirs, to do so according to the standard plans. In addition I envisage holding a series of regional information conferences to inform small municipalities on meat hygiene and the standards we expect of them. We have also asked the Abattoir Corporation to give assistance where applicable in administering the larger rural abattoirs. In reply to a question by the hon. member for Fauresmith, I want to state here and now that I am not in favour of small abattoirs being summarily closed down.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that I must let that suffice.

Mr. Chairman, thus far this debate has been relatively calm and political issues have been avoided. I shall try to continue in this vein.

Hear, hear!

I want to start with the hon. the Minister. He made a calculation and then came to the conclusion that all is well with the farmers. In consequence of this I want to tell him the joke of the two city dwellers who went on a guinea-fowl hunt. They arrived at the farm dam and when the first guinea-fowl appeared, the first man fired a shot. But it was a foot above the guinea-fowl. The guinea-fowl flew away. The other man then took the rifle and when the next guinea-fowl arrived, he fired a shot. But that shot was a foot below the guinea-fowl. They then packed up their belongings and left, and when the farmer asked them what was going on, they replied: “On average we have shot two guinea-fowl; we are going home!” I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the guinea-fowl are definitely not in the bag. The guinea-fowl are still flying.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that when we say that we shall keep the debate out of the political arena, he should not think that we shall not look very critically at the Government. Thus far the hon. the Minister has fired two shots, one yesterday and one today, and on average his shots have been a foot too high and a foot too low. However, we shall overlook it this time. Next year, and we shall not do so on the political level but purely on the agricultural level, if we do not get results and the guineafowl is not in the bag, we shall get stuck into him.

The hon. the Minister said he wanted to plough a straight furrow. I feel we should give credit where credit is due. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in my opinion he grasped the tractor’s steering-wheel firmly and that he started off in a nice straight line. The only trouble is that thus far he has forgotten to lower the plough. The tracks are there, but the furrow is not there yet. We shall keep a critical eye on the Minister and praise him where necessary, but we shall also get stuck into him when it is necessary. We expect results.

I feel that the reasons why agriculture is in such a serious predicament have so far emerged very clearly in this debate. At the outset, and again a while ago, the hon. the Minister gave a very good analysis of these matters. The reasons are, in the first place, input costs; in the second place, high interest rates, and in the third place, a protective policy as regards protected domestic industries which play a role in agriculture in particular. In the fourth place this debate brought to light that South Africa badly needs an extremely constructive and dynamic population policy for the rural areas. In my opinion it has become quite clear that agriculture is in a serious predicament.

Once again I should like to single out very briefly a few aspects of the maize industry. The maize industry is the industry which finds itself in the worst predicament owing to the fact that certain of its input costs rose more rapidly than those of other industries. In 1973 the total gross income of the maize industry was R605 million, The cost to it of producing that income was R173 million. There was a profit of R432 million. Seven years later, when we had a record crop, namely in 1980-’81, the income had risen to R1,657 million, but costs had soared to R1 248 million. Then, in spite of a record crop, the maize industry made a R409 million profit. This was R23 million less than seven years before. Last year the maize industry had a loss of R417 million with a crop of 8,2 million tons in contrast with a similar crop of 8,1 million tons in 1978-’79 which still made a profit of R46 million. Last year there was a loss of R400 million, and this year, if we accept the March estimate, the loss is going to be approximately R1 000 million; in other words a total of R1 400 million. I want to tell the hon. the Minister: The guinea-fowl is not in the bag. His figures are in the red. We know what the causes of this are and I want to make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that price is a factor because if the input costs are too high, the price has to be adjusted. Otherwise the input costs have to be adjusted to keep pace with the price. I just want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the following: In 1978-’79 the selling price of maize was R83,10. The following year it rose by 23%. The year after that it rose by a further 22%. That brings us to 1981-’82. That year we had a record crop. The selling price of maize rose by 9,6%. Last year we again had a poor crop. Then the selling price of maize rose by 15,17%. This year we had the poorest crop and this year the price rose by 9,4%.

What is the …

I am now referring to the selling price of maize, the price paid by the consumer. This year the price rose less than it did in a record year. How did the hon. the Minister succeed in the poorest year of all, where the farmers showed a loss of R1 000 million, in getting the price to rise less than it did when the farmers had a record crop? I am now referring to the price at which the maize is sold; the price at which the Maize Board sells the maize. What other industry will put up with a loss of R1 000 million, after which everyone washes their hands of the matter. The Railways cannot take it. They simply put up their prices. Escom cannot take it. They simple put up their prices. The milling industry cannot take it. They simply put up their prices. The hon. the Minister is fully aware that control over the price of maize-meal has been abolished. In 1970-’71 the selling price of the Maize Board was R37-70 and the consumer price of maize-meal was R49-60. The margin was 31,6%. Then control was lifted. The margin gradually increased to 61,8% last year. The selling price of the Maize Board was R155-50 last year and the selling price of maize-meal was R251. These are our clients, the people who purchase maizemeal, but the fact that control has been lifted has allowed the margin to double from 31% to 61,8%. This is calculated on the actual price at which the maize-meal is sold.

This year the production cost of maize, in other words, what it costs the farmer, is more or less R366 per ton, if the crop estimates are correct. Yet the price the farmer receives is a mere R170. No farmer can carry on like this. It is impossible. That is why I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we shall have to get results. Fine words and a calm discussion are not enough. They are not going to keep us going.

What should the price be?

There are a few things the hon. the Minister can do. The first thing he can do is to look at the budget. He has to review the agriculture budget. As a real priority agriculture has not only been neglected in this budget, it has been totally ignored. Between the years 1947 and 1959 and up to 1969, 8% of the budget was normally spent on agriculture. This year the figure is only 2%. In this budget an amount of R1 700 million should have been allocated to agriculture. Agricultural research and extension are the life-blood of agriculture. I do not think that the standard of extension and research of the past can be maintained with a budget of only R467 million. As I have said, it is the life-blood of agriculture. Without that knowledge and technological development, agriculture will simply not be able to keep pace with the demands of the times.

In the second place the chairman of the Maize Board pointed out to the hon. the Minister that we are paying too much for nitrogen. He also pointed out to the hon. the Minister that we are paying 100% too much for tractors. It is of no use the hon. the Minister telling us that he is waiting for the report of the Jacobs Committee. He knows that those things have already been pointed out to him. He should therefore begin working on them. In any case there is only one way in which …

Do you want to tell me how to do my job? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I am addressing the hon. the Minister in his capacity as Minister of Agriculture. He must not think he will satisfy us by appointing commissions. We are only interested in results.

I do not like the manner in which you are speaking. I am telling you that quite frankly.

Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to the hon. the Minister as a farmer. I am not discussing politics with him. All we want is for him to shoot that guinea-fowl. We are tired of him missing it every time.

I am telling you I do not like the manner in which you are speaking to me. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I will unfortunately not be here this afternoon to listen to his reply. I want to tender my apologies for that right now at the outset. The hon. the Minister stated certain facts when he introduced the discussion of this vote yesterday. The hon. the Minister asked what our stake in agriculture was at the present time, and pointed out that 1 200 000 people were currently employed in agriculture in South Africa. These people, according to the hon. the Minister, are employed on 70 000 farms. These farms, as the hon. Minister put it, must be looked upon as small business undertakings, and he even went further by pointing out that one of the priorities which would be dealt with in the forthcoming White Paper would be the question of keeping on the land the 1 200 000 employees working on those 70 000 farms. He said these people have to be kept on the land in order to ensure the security of our rural areas in South Africa. I agree with the hon. the Minister entirely, and I sincerely hope his White Paper will indicate the direction he believes agriculture should follow in future. Having said that now, I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that there are certain facts which we just have to face. Some of the points I want to raise now were also referred to by the hon. member for Lichtenburg. One of the first facts that we should face, I believe, is that the family farm, the small agricultural business to which the hon. the Minister referred, as we know it in South Africa today, is just not going to survive in the future as long as the agricultural input costs continue to escalate at the rate at which they have increased during the last two years, while, at the same time, the farmers’, or what we call, producer prices continue to lag far behind. This is an economic fact of life. The hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, who is unfortunately leaving the House now, should also be aware of this.

Do not worry. I am listening.

I do want to mention a point or two to him as well, Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism must also accept this fact. It is economically impossible for agriculture to survive while its costs escalate at a rate far in excess of the price which the farmers receive for their products. Because of this I believe that the people of South Africa have to be made to realize that although they may feel that food prices are escalating at a frightful rate, the South African farmer is today subsidizing the consumer. It is not only the consumer who is being subsidized at the present time, and this is a point I want to make to the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. The hon. member for King William’s Town said yesterday that the agricultural community in South Africa today is also subsidizing commerce and industry. The facts are there to prove this and they are contained in the Government’s own publication of statistics. Anybody wishing to study this document will find that statement is entirely correct. No matter what the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism may say—we debated his Vote earlier this week—there are certain protected industries in South Africa that I believe are riding on the backs of the South African farmers.

Would you care to name them?

Certainly. There is the tractor industry, the ADE industry, the fertilizer industry and the chemical industry, to name only a few. There are many of them and they are riding on the backs of the farmers. I also want to say that there are certain commercial monopolies that control the wholesale and retail marketing of some of our products that are also riding on the backs of our farmers at the present time. My hon. colleague there will elaborate further on this point today.

Having said that, I want to say that I agree with the hon. member for Queenstown who said yesterday that a more stringent application of the legislation affecting agriculture would greatly assist the agricultural community. I do not doubt for one moment that we in this legislature, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said this morning, can assist the agricultural community still further by amending certain Acts etc. To my mind, however, the long-term future and prosperity of organized agriculture in this country as we know it is, I believe, going to depend to a large extent on the farming community’s own efforts and determination. I believe that agriculture has to extricate itself from the morass into which it has sunk. I believe that the South African farmers cannot rely upon the Government to solve their problems. The policy of the NP to date has clearly indicated that at the present time the farmers are going down the drain and the Government has not helped to solve these problems entirely.

Secondly, I believe that the agricultural industry must not rely on big business to help it. I believe that big business is only too ready to gobble up the individual farmer as we know him. In my opinion the first priority is for our farmers to strengthen and support more fully their own farming organizations and I believe they ought also to take a good look at their elected leaders, some of whom may even have been appointed. I submit, that it is possible that some of the leaders of organized agriculture today could quite possibly, because of their expanding interests either into industry and commerce or even into politics, are more interested in their own personal activities and affairs than they are in those of the people who elected them to office. I say that this is a possibility and I believe that the agricultural community has to take a good look at its organizations because this needs to be examined.

Thirdly, as has been said here, there must be a far more aggressive marketing campaign. I believe that we have to be acutely aware of the potential of our own domestic market in South Africa. These markets are being eroded, in my opinion, by illegal imports. I believe that in the case of dried milk-powders, some of them are being imported through neighbouring countries and our own dairy producers are being undermined in this way. I also believe that there must be a drive for export markets and I think that the agricultural industry should study more fully the dumping policies of the EEC. It must also study the effect that these dumping policies are having on the prices of agricultural commodities throughout the world and especially upon the export prices which a number of sectors of our industry are obtaining for their products. I believe that we have to be far more aggressive in our efforts to maintain and expand our exports to Europe, and I sincerely hope that the Government will assist in this regard.

Fourthly, I believe that our farmers must have a good look at what happens to their agricultural products from the time they leave the farm until the time they reach the consumer. Organized agriculture must be prepared to have a far greater way and a far greater involvement in this regard. In fact, they must demand this, just as the dairy industry has to some extent and as the sugar cane industry has.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get involved in a maize debacle, but I want to tell the hon. member for Lichtenburg in his absence that I have a feeling that if the hon. the Minister were to get the hon. member in his sight he would definitely score a hit on him. [Interjections.]

As a person who is very closely involved with the dairy industry, and who is also very interested in it, I want to exchange a few ideas on the industry with you. There is no doubt that the dairy industry occupies a unique place in the economic position of the South African farmer, particularly if we take into consideration that approximately 3 800 farmers produce fresh milk and about 29 000 farmers are involved in the production of cream and industrial milk with a gross monetary value of approximately R500 million. Approximately half of all our farmers are therefore involved in the dairy industry. Whether they are permanent milk farmers and whether they have been forced by circumstances to become milk farmers as the hon. the Minister pointed out, it is the duty of the Dairy Board to encourage a reliable flow of milk and milk products at reasonable prices for both the producer and the consumer. I want to thank the Dairy Board most sincerely for this function it performs.

Yet, I wonder whether the time has not come for serious attention to be given to the possibility of introducing a little more discipline into the industry. I can fully understand that under difficult circumstances many farmers find it a welcome stopgap to turn to milk production to ensure them an essential cash flow ip critical times. However, is it fair to the regular producer who consistently contributes to the Stabilization Fund that these occasional milk farmers plunge the industry into such a surplus situation that the entire Stabilization Fund is wiped out?

I never want to be jointly responsible for anyone being prohibited from producing milk because I believe in free competition in the industry. I do not think we have completely exploited our market either. I nevertheless feel that there is merit in undertaking an investigation into some differentiated price structure or other in order to give a degree of credit to the consistent producer who has made this industry his life’s work, a task which is certainly not the easiest in the agricultural industry. If surpluses do arise, it is the task of the Dairy Board to assist in getting rid of such surpluses, whether this is done domestically or abroad.

Basic daily marketing is, however, the function of those people who handle the farmer’s product, whether they be the co-operatives or private organizations. I frequently ask myself whether these institutions display sufficient initiative to be able to market effectively. Do they not frequently rely too heavily on the control board to perform this function for them? In a country like South Africa where production costs are higher as a result of long distances, unfavourable climatic conditions and a relatively small market, it is more difficult to keep prices low. It is in fact for that reason that one of the Dairy Board’s major achievements is that it has succeeded in keeping the consumer price index figure of milk lower than that of other foodstuffs.

I want to refer to a few figures pertaining to March 1983. The consumer price index figure for fish—so they tell me—is the lowest at 239,9. Then follows milk and eggs at 245,9. The average for all foods is 276. Let us make another comparison. How much usable protein can one purchase for R1? In the case of eggs one can purchase 109 gram; in the case of milk, 52 gram; in the case of cheese, 50 gram; and in the case of rump steak, only 18 gram. Put another way, one kilogram of egg protein costs R9, one kilogram of milk protein costs R16 and one kilogram of rump steak protein costs R44. Where do people come by the idea that the price of dairy products is too high?

As a result of periodic droughts it is, however, unavoidable that from time to time both surplusses and shortages will be experienced, which inevitably cause the board major headaches. As a matter of fact, at the moment the board is in a situation where the hon. the Minister has to rack his brains over surplusses, which cannot be marketed abroad either without major losses being suffered. At present dairy products are being over-produced in virtually all Western countries. The S.A. Agricultural Union referred to this fact in its agricultural review and said that serious attention should be given to the matter.

At the moment the Dairy Board has a surplus of 2 500 tons of cheese, 2 000 tons of butter and 15 600 tons of skim-milk powder. It is in fact this product, skim-milk powder, which has to be the stabilizing factor in the industry. I am not terribly concerned about that, because the production of milk is dropping rapidly at the moment. I think that during the coming winter months these surplusses will gradually disappear and be absorbed. What is, however, alarming is that illegal imports—I should very much like to bring this to the hon. the Minister’s attention—and imports of blended or other milk solids, imports over which the Dairy Board has no control, are entering the country in every conceivable way and are responsible for 75% of this surplus. What is also alarming is that these products are usually subsidized in their country of origin so that they can compete unfairly with our local products.

My time has almost expired, and I still have so much to say. Although I do not really have anything against milk powder being mixed with other vegetable fats with the aim of putting an acceptable creamer on the market, we must, however, ensure that the percentage composition is clearly indicated and that our own milk is used in the process. For that reason the special circumstances of the position in the dairy industry in South Africa require special measures. I therefore want to make a serious appeal to both the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism to introduce special measures so that dumping of dairy products will not take place in our country. In other words, the loopholes have to be closed.

I also want to make an appeal for more effective marketing. It is alarming to see how the per capita consumption of milk in the country has dropped. The per capita consumption of milk dropped from 64 kg in 1955 to 38,9 kg in 1980-’81. Compare this with the figure for a country like Finland where the per capita consumption is 238 kg. The per capita consumption in Ireland is 199 kg and in Sweden 165 kg. I ask myself whether we are not raising a generation of people in South Africa who do not know what dairy products are. Should we not go back and give this product to our children in such a way that they become used to it and can use it? We are throwing very good food out of the back door.

Mr. Chairman, just before lunch the hon. member for Lichtenburg led us into a shooting debate and accused the hon. the Minister of Agriculture of shooting over and short of the guinea-fowl. I am willing to admit that the hon. member for Lichtenburg would be on target and hit a guinea-fowl, because it is just as speckled as that chequer-board homeland policy of theirs. [Interjections.]

We have emphasized the importance of our various production aids in agriculture on various occasions by, for example, desigrating a year to be Water Year and then emphasizing the importance of water to agriculture during that year. There was also Green Heritage Year. In this way we emphasized the value of these natural resources entrusted to man by the Creator.

However, today we ask ourselves whether we have given sufficient recognition to man and in this specific case, to the farmer, for the role he plays in harnessing these aids of nature in the interests of the national economy. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture has already referred to the difficult conditions under which the farmer has to operate in our country today. For several years now it has been our custom to declare farmers to be farmers of the year in certain areas and on the grounds of certain meritorious attainments. This is done by the Landbouskrywersvereniging. I therefore want to ask whether the time has not come for us to designate a year to be the Year of the Farmer. The intention is not to glorify people, but rather to give recognition to the profession of farmer. The aim of this is to point out to the other sectors the importance of the role the farmer plays in producing food. Because the farmer is the producer of food, we also want to point out why it is so essential for him to receive financial assistance, particularly during disastrous situations, in order to guarantee continuity in our agricultural production and also to maintain the farming community in South Africa. Agriculture, and in this case the farmer, is a keystone in the pyramid of our economy. If we remove this keystone from the pyramid, not only agriculture, but also a large number of secondary industries, will collapse. For these reasons the State usually steps in timeously to assist our farmers in such circumstances.

The farmer is constantly being critized because he receives State assistance. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister also referred to the reciprocal responsibility between the State and the farmer. We also have to remember that many things are attributed to the farmer from which he does not benefit directly. I want to refer, for example, to consumer subsidies. State assistance is also necessary because agricultural production is a long-term process. It takes years to build up a herd. It also takes years from the time one plants an orchard until one can pick the fruit. That is why it is essential, even under surplus conditions, for us to give financial as-sitance to agriculture so that production can be maintained, so that we can make provision for the years in which there are shortages and so that we can keep pace with the growing population. That is also the reason why farmers can lay claim to loans at lower interest rates. There are tremendous risks in the agricultural industry, for example, droughts and hail. Sometimes during droughts the farmer does not earn a return on his investment at all.

One asks oneself: Who is this farmer and what has he already achieved? The farmer is the largest single landowner in our country today and in times of confrontation in this country he will be the first to take up arms. He will also be the last person to leave the country. The farmer of South Africa has tamed the deserts in our country and made them habitable. The Kalahari desert is a striking example of this. The farmers have also converted the banks of the Vaal and Orange Rivers into a productive pleasure garden. It is also as a result of the presence of the farmer that towns in the rural areas grew up and that small business undertakings flourished on the buying power of the farmer. In times of droughts and depression, the farmer is the first to be hit, but because of his courage and his determination to survive, he constantly emerges from such disasters stronger than before. The 70 000 farmers of South Africa not only support 70 000 families in our country, but also take care of one million agricultural workers. They also provide the basic food requirements for 25 million people. Because the farmer in South Africa is productive, this has led to our being one of the seven agricultural produce exporting countries in the world. In this way agriculture earns foreign exchange for our country.

Because the farmer lives close to nature, he also lives close to his Creator and in the rural areas in particular he plays a vital role in the religious activities of families and the church.

What demands are being made on the farmer today? In the first place, he has to be a scientist and use the most modern production methods because we cannot really expand horizontally. He has to be an economist, because a farm is a business undertaking. He has to keep proper records and has to undertake proper financial planning. The farmer also has to be a labourer, otherwise he will not have the knowledge to issue proper instructions. The farmer has to be an engineer and has to have adequate knowledge of machinery. The farmer has to provide community services in public life. The farmer also has to be part of the co-operative movement, because that is the key to the successful marketing of his products. The genuine farmer is, however, also a person with a sense of humour.

One of our Transvaal farmers compared a farmer to a motor-car. Some are smooth and others are dented. Some are crumpled and full of scratches and dents. There are some which boil over when they have to do a little work. Some move jerkily; others smoothly. Some can take knocks whereas others cannot. Some develop water problems and become thirsty. Some look better from the back than from the front. Some have to be warmed up for a long time before they get going. Some have to be pushed to get them started, but once they are moving one battles to stop them again. Some are silent, others are noisy and need silencers. All of them make more noise the older they get. All of them flourish on a little love. Some stall at a certain point, refuse to go any further and have to be sent back home. One frequently feels like kicking them. Some are seldom, if ever, washed or cleaned properly. Some can raise a lot of dust and some are heavy on fuel. Some are short and compact, while others are long and sprawling.

In spite of this diversity, the farmer of this country deserves proper recognition, and I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider introducing a Year of the Farmer.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that his introductory words indicated to me that he does not know much about the political implications of what passed between the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Lichtenburg. However, I give him a very high mark for his speech on agriculture. I can see that he is a good farmer and a person who is acquainted with agriculture and the problems of farmers.

My chief aim today is to pay tribute to the South African farmer. The South African farmer devotes his life to developing this fine and important key industry of South Africa. Agriculture is today a credit to the South African economy, in which it is the most important industry. In the face of droughts, floods, economic pressure and innumerable problems, the farmer of South Africa has succeeded in killing three birds with one stone for South Africa. In the first place, the farmer of South Africa produces food for the entire population of South Africa. Secondly, the farmer of South Africa succeeds in filling hungry stomachs in the rest of Africa, when necessary. The farmer of South Africa has succeeded in making South Africa one of the small group of countries which qualifies as a food exporting country, a country that exports food to countries overseas. This is what the South African farmer has achieved. Over the past number of years the South African farmer has achieved the following as far as food exports are concerned: In 1970 the South African farmer was responsible for food exports to the value of R431 million; in 1976 the figure was R1 237 million and in 1981 he exported food to the value of R2 000 million. As further evidence of the importance of the farmer, I have before me the annual report of the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa. While I am dealing with the Land Bank, due to a lack of time I again just briefly wish to extend a word of thanks from myself and my voters for the way in which the officials of the Land Bank treat the farmers of my constituency—and therefore, surely, the farmers of South Africa as well—and give them a hearing where necessary. That goes for the department as well. They often work for the farmer of South Africa behind the scenes by way of research, extension, etc. I wish to express our thanks for that. To come back to the annual report of the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa, it has the following inter alia to say about the South African farmer (page 12)—

I want to go further and quote how the South African farmer, and I am repeating this—is succeeding, in difficult economic circumstances, in developing and stabilizing this agricultural industry in South Africa. Let me quote a few statistics. A survey of the past year carried out by the S.A. Agricultural Union reads inter alia as follows—

I took note of what the hon. the Minister said this morning. He said by implication that in calculating this we had to allow more or less 3% in favour of the farmer. Even if we were to do that, the farmers would still be building up a big backlog every year. I want to provide further statistics in this regard. Between 1970 and 1981, producer prices rose by 272% and the price of farming requisites by 317%, a difference of 45%. Between 1974 and 1981 producer prices increased by 117% and the price of farming requisites by 182%, a difference of 65%. If one deducts the 3% to which the hon. the Minister referred, there remains a difference of approximately 44% over these years. The consumer index has increased by 219% from 1970 to 1981. In contrast, the farmer’s requisites have increased by 317%, a difference of 98%. One is forced to the conclusion that in these difficult circumstances the farmer of South Africa has become more efficient. Let me quote the following from the report of the S.A. Agricultural Union—

Notwithstanding all these economic difficulties—natural disasters, droughts, floods and other disasters that the farmer is subject to from time to time—the farmer is still able to increase his efficiency.

A question to which I hope the hon. the Minister will give us a reply is one asked here by the hon. member for Lichtenburg, viz. how it is possible that Mr. Von Abo of the Maize Board could content that he would be able to deliver at Bothaville a tractor for which the South African farmer paid R20 000, for only R10 000. How is that possible? How are we to square this? If it cannot be squared, the South African farmer is once again the one who has to pay the price.

Sir, as a person with practical experience of farming and of commerce and industry, I content that the South African farmer does not receive his rightful share from the economy of South Africa. I know what I am talking about. Indeed, I venture to say that commerce and industry in South Africa are cosseted, often at the expense of the South African farmer. And when the day comes that the farmer no longer sees his way clear to producing food, it will be too late to try to rectify matters. We must do so now while we have the opportunity.

I want to associate myself with the statement made by the hon. the Minister this morning that the farmer prefers to stay on his land out of love of the land. That is true. For him, the struggle continues every day, the struggle against the elements of nature, and often, too, the elements of the economy, e.g. poor producer prices and high input prices. Nevertheless the farmer says: “But nevertheless the struggle continues on my farm. I want to remain here and preserve a heritage to leave to my descendants.” Every day the South African farmer on his farm says to himself: “Here I am creating my own future, a future for myself and my children. I want this land to be preserved for them.” The South African farmer also says to himself every day on his farm: “Fulfil your calling! It is my calling to produce food for the population of South Africa and, if necessary, for Africa as well; and if necessary it is my calling to produce food that can be exported to other countries in the world.” The South African farmer says to himself every day on his farm: “Here I enjoy unconfined nature; here I breathe clean air; and here I live by the sweat of my brow. That is freedom, freedom with justice. I shall remain here to preserve a heritage for my children.”

Mr. Chairman, I agree with what the hon. member for Meyerton said about the quality and strategic importance of the farmer. Our farmers are indeed fully capable of looking after themselves.

Many speakers mentioned the depopulation of the White platteland. This is indeed a fact, to a greater extent in certain areas than in others. Nevertheless it is a trend that is encountered worldwide. The result is of course an increasing rate of urbanization, and this is a matter which for some time has been engaging the attention of the authorities. Various efforts have been made to counter it. The strategic, social and economic disadvantages of the over-concentration of industries in metropolitan areas has been engaging the attention of the authorities since the ’thirties. The Commission on Rural Industries in the ’thirties, the report of the Social and Economic Planning Council in the ’forties and, arising out of that, the report of Natural Resources Development Council and the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act, gave this further momentum. In 1975 the National Physical Development Plan appeared and on 12 November 1981 the revised industrial decentralized programme appeared. The element of a cohesive regional development strategy for South Africa means that the subcontinent is divided into eight regions. Industrial development and deconcentration points were identified. Since 1 April this year concessions and aid have been granted to prospective industrialists on a differentiated basis. The aim of this is, chiefly, the reduction of the disadvantages in the long-term as regards the transport, energy and other costs, and, of course, relief in respect of the initial liquidity problems in order to ensure balanced development in this way.

Balanced development is just as important and essential in agriculture. Moreover there are certain areas that experience long-term disadvantages as far as transport, energy and other costs are concerned, and the principle of differentiated assistance has been accepted in order to ensure a greater population density on our international borders in terms of the Promotion of the Density of Population in Designated Areas Act, Act No. 87 of 1979. In this instance the chief objective was of course the promotion of the security of the country by promoting a greater population density in those areas.

However, there is no doubt that agriculture plays the most important role in balanced regional development as an employer, as a support for service industries, etc., and also a counter to urbanization. In the third instance, agriculture creates many employment opportunities.

Therefore it is important that the rural development programme be launched from a broader social, economic and physical point of view. Every community must contribute its own share in this regard. The community itself must determine its own inherent power and potential, and identify it as well. Moreover the community must identify what the minimum contribution of the authorities should be in order to determine the full potential of the long-term disadvantages which stand in the way of community development. If this is done and the Government accepts that assistance on a differentiated basis should be granted to agriculture on a regional basis, subject to such tests as those laid down for industry, several of the growing problems of certain agricultural communities would solve themselves, and this would entail solutions for the associated problems as well.

I should like to stress that in this regard the role of the community is very important, because the community must determine what factors can ensure equal treatment in their case, and it must be able to justify its submissions. Then, too, there are disadvantages involved in operating and establishment costs. I concede that it is going to be very difficult to tell one farmer that he qualifies and another that he does not. However, I have tried to indicate that the principle of differentiated assistance on a regional basis has already been accepted.

Accordingly I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for his approach to the matter, which is that agriculture is a major and important employer. I also appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister wants to extend the principle of support to small business enterprises still to be established, to agriculture as an economic policy and as a regional economic strategy. I agree wholeheartedly with him that agriculture should be regarded as a small business enterprise and that it can play a very important role with regard to population density. In the case of the Mozambican border it has been possible after two years to suspend the assistance to designated areas, and accordingly it has been possible to give attention to other problems such as water, and for this we want to convey our sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries.

As I have already said, the role of agriculture is a very important one because it serves as a stimulus for balanced rural development, and at the same time as a counter to urbanization. I believe that every region has its inherent strengths which can make such a region self-supporting with only limited interference from outside, with all the benefits that would involve.

Mr. Chairman … [Interjections.]

We do not want to hear about squatters.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we should actually keep politics out of this agriculture debate. [Interjections.] Well, there are some farmers I know who make more money out of squatting than out of their farming activities. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we were glad to learn of the White Paper on agricultural policy which he plans to table next year. In the short time available to me I just want to make a few inputs of my own which he might consider in drafting that White Paper.

†Mr. Chairman, we are obviously concerned now only with commercial agriculture; in other words, agriculture that is generally conducted on freehold land that is most often owned by the farmer farming the land or by a company which he or his family owns. I think it is true to say that as farms become bigger, they require more management. One finds therefore that a farmer will often employ a foreman and in some cases even a manager at a more senior level. Along the coastal areas in Natal many of these foremen are Indians while in the Western Cape in many cases they are Coloureds. I should like to urge the hon. the Minister to take a good look at his agricultural colleges with a view to making them more accessible to students with matriculation qualifications who are not White. At Baynesfield in Natal and at Boskop in the Transvaal excellent training is given to Black farming assistants although it is generally people who are semiskilled and unskilled who are trained at these places. However, there is also the need to train Black people to a slightly higher level, and at Baynesfield, the Natal Agricultural Union and the Baynesfield Trust intend introducing a one-year full-time training course to train Black farm labourers to a higher level. I understand that there are now some Coloured students at Elsenburg, and I hope that this trend will continue so that our agriculture will not be short of the skilled management that it needs.

There is a further matter to which I wish to devote the rest of the time I have and that is the question of the valuation of farming land. I think that we all know that it is very easy to determine what cost is but that it is not always so easy to determine what value is. When one is a buyer there is nothing available. It is always very expensive and it is very difficult to acquire. When one is a seller nobody wants to buy. They offer prices that are too low and it is extremely difficult in some cases to judge what the true value of a farm is. Furthermore, farms are not easily negotiable. They do not change hands like negotiable securities on the Stock Exchange. They are expensive and they are difficult to sell. The fact that most sellers of farmland will give the buyer a low interest bond on the farm is also an indication of their appreciation of the fact that often the prices that they are asking are high in relation to the economic potential of the farm.

We have ruling in the agricultural sphere two kinds of valuers. We have what are called Land Bank valuers and we also have people who will shortly be recognized under the legislation in respect of valuers. The Land Bank valuer is often a person of great integrity. He is often a local farmer. Often a valuer is somebody who has had little scientific or formal training in the techniques of valuation, not even agricultural valuations. One will find that the average farmer will always get the Land Bank valuer in when he wants a loan from the Land Bank or if he wants to have an estate duty valuation done because he knows that the Land Bank valuer values at a relatively low level. However, when the provincial administration or the Department of Community Development wants to expropriate his farm, the last person the farmer brings in is the Land Bank valuer. He normally gets in a professional valuer with suitable qualifications. This is so because the farmer understands that there is an agricultural value and a market value.

Last year the Agricultural Credit Amendment Act was enacted after the Bill had been introduced by the then Deputy Minister of Agriculture, the present hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. In terms of that legislation it is acknowledge that land should be bought at market value and then be sold to young farmers at what was called agricultural value. The Ministry of Agriculture therefore acknowledges the fact that there are two values for land. We had the same situation in terms of the Agricultural Credit Amendment Bill which was introduced during the current session. In terms of this Bill the procedures for a loan to be granted in terms of the security provided were changed. In fact, Mr. Wilkens of the S.A. Agricultural Union requested some three weeks ago the Land Bank and the Department of Agriculture through the Press to consider 100% bonds on the basis of Land Bank valuations. We all know that in South Africa we have two values, an agricultural value and a market value. One uses one or the other depending on one’s circumstances.

I believe we should try to work towards creating one value for farm land in South Africa. I should like to suggest one or two proposals which might be considered. I do not want to suggest that this is a policy or a PFP point of view, but I think these are things which the hon. the Minister might consider for his White Paper.

The first proposal is that money should be paid for at what it costs. The hon. member for Nelspruit said in his speech just now that the question of border farms in the Nelspruit area has been settled and that there is no problem. My information is, however, that in the other parts of the Transvaal where border farms are being put up for sale people who apply for loans to buy these farms are getting money at very cheap prices. In fact, there is no interest for the first year or two and later the interest rates are very low. The effect has been that the price of land on the borders has rocketed because the seller says to himself that the buyer is getting the loan very cheaply and therefore the price can be increased. Similarly, when a man sells a farm he will often give the buyer a cheap bond over a long period because the seller knows that otherwise the buyer will not be able to farm economically on the land. I believe that we have to move towards getting a realistic interest rate.

Secondly, something else which I believe could be investigated is a land tax so that for example one will have to decide what an economic unit is. This is an aspect which could also be looked at.

Are you propagating such a tax?

No, I said earlier that these were things which could be investigated.

Why then do you raise this?

The hon. the Minister should not try to trap me. I am telling the Committee that these are possibilities which can be considered. The third aspect is a further tax aspect. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister will smile in a minute. He will smile nicely. I want to ask him: Is he in favour of abolishing estate duty?

I have asked you a deliberate question.

That is the point. It does not resolve the issue. A third aspect that should be looked at is the formula for estate duty. I believe that if estate duty were to be abolished the tendency to invest in farmland and to peg the value by using a Land Bank valuation and then to accumulate an asset, would tend to be reduced. That is also a way of pushing up the value of farm land because there is an estate duty advantage, a tax advantage, attached to it. I believe that could be looked at.

By using a whole number of these mechanisms I believe that one could endeavour to close the gap between agricultural value and market value. I accept that in any society where one has an ever-growing number of people chasing less land one will always tend to get the possibility of land having a scarcity value, which will push it above its economic value. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North will understand if I say that I do not want to react to his somewhat wild theories, because I should like to say something about the canning industry.

Recent years have presented this industry with several problems and bottle-necks particularly in the Western Cape. I wish to single out a few of these problems. In the first place, there have been record crops in the fruit industry world-wide. In addition, there have been very high interest rates. Another factor has been subsidies within the Euromart. In Greece a fruit farmer earns R300 per ton for his canned peaches, whereas the factory only pays R83 for them. Apart from that, our fruit is subject with a levy of between 17% and 24%, as against that canned fruit. It is also true that the rand has firmed, particularly in 1980-’81. The suspension of the export incentive measures of approximately R4 million was a short, sharp jab under the ribs. A final factor I want to mention is the fact that there has been a world-wide drop in per capita consumption of canned fruit. People are changing to fresh fruit.

In order to alleviate this problem it was decided to try to bring demand and supply into fine by way of marketing quotas. Thus the price of fruit has not been increased over the past four years or so and indeed, has been reduced somewhat in the past year. This alone would of course be enough to ruin the farmer financially, so financial assistance has really become necessary. It is true that over the past three years since 1980, considerable State assistance has been granted to the canned fruit farmer. Without spelling out the aid in detail, I wish to convey my sincere thanks for this assistance on behalf of myself and the fruit farmers. Indeed, it has kept many of these farmers going. It is true that in this case as well, the Government has shown that it has a receptive ear and an open purse for people who are in difficulties.

For his part, the fruit farmer is trying to rationalize. Orchards have been replaced, and in the process five canning factories have been closed. The intake of fruit has accordingly dropped by 28,6% since 1980. The total production of canned fruit has dropped by 47% since 1980. In the same period the export of canned fruit has declined from 9,3 million basic cartons to 7 million basic cartons. Local sales have declined by 100 000 cartons.

This being the background, we can state that this industry can maintain itself as a vigorous and competitive industry by way of rationalization. In this process it is in fact the most efficient farmer who remains in the industry. However, it is true that we must always bear in mind that this industry provides employment to approximately 40 000 labourers. In total the industry provides a living to approximately a quarter of a million people. The industry purchases fresh fruit from the farmers at R20 000 annually and earns R130 million abroad. Domestically the industry spends R48 million on tins, R14 million on sugar and R5 million on cartons. Rail transport is used, shipping firms earn R15 million and millions of rands are spent on chemicals, electricity, fertilizer, etc.

With this as a background one can draw certain conclusions. The first is that the canning industry, notwithstanding its problems, can in fact still be an efficient and extremely sound industry. It is true that the industry will have to rely on its export market for many years. The biggest problem on the export market, as has been outlined, is the unjust and unjustified competition of other sectors and particularly the European system of subsidies. It is not called a subsidy, but instead is called aid to backward areas. This is in accordance with the joint agricultural policy of the EEC but is in conflict with the spirit of the GATT principles, and it upsets the market entirely. It is true that the USA and Australia are investigating these matters and are beginning to complain. Whether this will help we do not know. We trust it will.

The industry is of the opinion that with the aid of marketing quotas and the static prices over the past four years, they have done enough to rationalize and curtail production. This has meant major sacrifices. What remains in the end are problems that are of a more social and political nature.

At this point I should like to specify a few guidelines for possible solutions. In this market, which is highly competitive, and which is also experiencing unfair competition, we shall have to put everything into the struggle to have a certain percentage of our fruit exported, viz. to maintain our original share of the market. In conjunction with these depressing marketing conditions, particularly overseas, we shall also have to consider the input costs. Other speakers have also referred to this. We shall have to consider the input costs before the producers lose all confidence in the industry. Therefore we shall have to attempt to outline certain guidelines, however difficult this may be. Hon. members will realize that if the industry cuts down too drastically we shall be saddled with a capital structure that will be operating uneconomically. We shall also have to consider deconcentration measures which may have an influence on the canning industry. Then, too, I call for a re-investigation of the export incentive measures—not only their re-introduction, partially or in full, but also greater flexibility of the system. I also ask that we take another look at the cost of inputs, as I have already said. In the case of the canning industry consideration must be given in particular to the prices of cans and cartons. We as farmers are eagerly looking forward to the report by Bepa. I also believe that we must consider the position of the rand, the rate of exchange. Another point that I should very much like to stress is that we are dealing with an industry which is a long-term industry. Accordingly I wish to ask that we should not provide funds on an ad hoc basis or from year to year. Nor must we do so for two to three years, but over a term of five years.

It is very clear to me that this industry just needs that small boost to enable it to overcome this major obstacle, so that it may be established as an industry which can make a considerable contribution in the Western Cape. Certain recommendations of the Jacobs Committee have been accepted by the hon. the Minister and I want to say that the industry is grateful for that. However, we call for details of the aid programme to be spelt out as soon as possible. There are matters about which the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet have not yet decided. We also wish to ask that consideration be given to the industry in its overall context, viz. with reference in particular to the socio-economic influence it may have in this field. I want to say that it is not only the canning industry that is experiencing problems but the deciduous fruit exporting industry as well. I fear that at this stage the recommendations of the Jacobs Committee are already out of date as far as the deciduous fruit industry is concerned. Accordingly I wish to ask that careful attention be given to these proposals. Some consideration must be given to long-term measures in respect of this long-term industry.

Mr. Chairman, it is a great privilege to be able to speak after the hon. member for Wellington. The hon. member is one of my constituents, and I assume hon. members will agree with me that I have a good class of voter in my constituency!

The hon. member spoke about canned fruit. I want to discuss another product, a product we eat at every meal, viz. bread.

There were problems with bread even in Biblical times, in the sense that when Joseph was in prison and he had to explain the prisoners’ dreams to them, the cupbearer was able to go about his task once more, whereas the baker had to hang. However, the position has improved considerably since that time. If there is one agricultural industry in South Africa that is truly well organized and where there is really an excellent relationship between the industry itself and the department and the Minister, it is the wheat industry.

In the times we are living in, when we so often speak about the free market mechanism on the one hand, as opposed to control or protection on the other, this industry is one which comes to our attention daily, since it produces a product which is used daily. I want to tell the hon. the Minister today that despite the high input costs of the wheat industry and despite the drought, and in many cases the poor quality of the soil, we in South Africa have succeeded in producing the cheapest bread in the world, irrespective of the subsidy system. We have succeeded in producing the best quality bread and providing the best service. I ask myself how the wheat industry is able to achieve this. In my opinion this is due to the sound balance in this particular industry between control on the one hand, but also free competition on the other. I think this is extremely important in respect of other industries as well.

As regards bread, it is often argued that we may have the cheapest bread in the world, but that this could be ascribed to the fact that South Africa’s per capita income is considerably lower than in the rest of the world. This may be so, but by mentioning a few facts, I want to prove that it is precisely as a result of control that we do, in fact, have the lowest final price for this product in the world. This may be ascribed solely to control measures. I want to give hon. members a brief description of the process whereby one arrives at the final price of bread.

The wheat price is recommended by the Wheat Board and is approved by the Minister. The agent, the co-operative, has to handle that product of the farmer at a fixed fee. That fee is so small that the private sector is not interested in the slightest in becoming involved. It is solely the task of the co-operative.

Co-operative also form part of the private sector.

Yes, but cooperatives are not part of the private sector in the usual sense of the word.

Thirdly, the miller purchases the wheat at a fixed price. He has to grind that wheat within a fixed margin, and that at a return on capital that has not attracted other interested parties to that industry over the past 15 or 20 years. I therefore wish to point out to hon. members how control assists in supplying the consumer with the end product as cheaply as possible.

The baker purchases the flour at a fixed price and he, in turn, has to process that product within a certain baker’s margin. The retailer then sells the product at a very small profit margin. In fact it is uneconomical, but he does attract the public to his store in this way.

Against that background, this industry has succeeded in supplying the South African consumer with the cheapest product, the cheapest staple food in the world. I could mention many interesting figures. Are hon. members aware that an unsubsidized loaf of white bread costs 56,5 cents in South Africa today? It costs 120 cents in America. In Stockholm it costs 206 cents for the same 900 gram loaf of bread. The fact is that final price is achieved on the basis of a wheat price which is almost twice as high as that in the rest of the world. I shall explain in a moment why the wheat price has to be so much higher in South Africa. Today the wheat price in South Africa is R275 per ton, whereas in America it is R160 per ton. What is the reason for this? Why are our prices so much higher? The average yield of South African wheat, as a result of climatic conditions and low soil fertility, is 1,15 tons per ha., as opposed to America’s 2,35 tons per ha. Our input costs in South Africa—and we have heard this many times in this debate and in other debates—are much higher than in the rest of the world. They are higher in respect of fuel, insecticides, fertilizer, the price of tractors, etc. I think it is a fantastic achievement that with a wheat price of R275 per ton, which is twice as high as the price in America, the farmer is ultimately able to give the client a product which is cheaper by half, solely as a result of control. But why does South Africa not import wheat if we could probably get it cheaper from abroad? I want to ask the hon. the Minister never to do anything different. Wheat is a strategic product in South Africa. It is our staple foodstuff, just as oil is a staple product, and we could never consider making ourselves dependent on imports. There is a second reason. The world production of wheat is really unable to keep up with world consumption. I could furnish very interesting figures on how production and consumption have increased over the 10 year period from 1972 to 1982. We in South Africa have no option but to remain self-sufficient in respect of the production of our staple food.

There is another matter I should very much like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and that is that South Africa is a member of the International Wheat Agreement. That wheat agreement consists of two parts, viz. the Wheat Trade Convention, of which South Africa is a member, and the Food Aid Convention, of which South Africa is not a member. This food aid convention is responsible throughout the world for purchasing surplus products, particularly in the developing countries, and for providing the under-developed countries with that surplus wheat. They only purchase their surplus wheat from countries that are members of that food aid convention.

I wish to recommend most strongly to the hon. the Minister that South Africa seriously consider becoming a member of that food aid convention.

I want to deal briefly with the South African wheat situation. In 1967, for the first time in the history of this country, we became self-sufficient as regards the production of wheat. Ten years later our wheat production doubled. Over the past two years we have produced more than 2,2 million tons, which is considerably more than our consumption in South Africa. Particularly in view of the drought and the prospects of a poor harvest, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether we should not seriously consider extending the stockpiling period, which is determined by the department, and dealt with by the Wheat Board from four months to six months. We simply have to implement that stockpiling policy. Of course, in order to be able to do so, we need more silos. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have no argument with the hon. member for Paarl. However, I shall have to leave him there because I have a row of my own to hoe.

I am pleased to see the hon. the Deputy Minister of Industries here because his Minister took umbrage the other day during the discussion of his Vote at what I had to say about protectionism. He spent a considerable amount of time on this issue, defending a position while he himself does not know how much it costs. However, notwithstanding his lengthy explanation I doubt whether he has convinced the farming community with his views on protection and the important part it plays in the input costs of the farmer. I say this because the mere fact that he has asked the Bureau for Economic and Political Analysis of the University of Pretoria to go into the costs of protection is a tacit admission that he does not really know what effect it has on the community as a whole. I was going to quote some figures to the hon. the Minister but they were last year’s figures, and I am indebted to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture for giving me the up-to-date figures yesterday. I should like to quote these figures if I may. They are as follows—

He goes on to say that from 1978 to 1983—

He goes on to say—

I would respectfully say that the views of Dr. Brand and Prof. Lombard are contrary to those of the hon. the Minister of Industries. We should also remember what the hon. the Minister of Finance said in his budget debate, namely—

Sir, I should like to get the record straight. We concur that it may be an exception that the principle of protectionism is applied. But I believe it should be considered as exceptional and be finalized by way of open debate in this House. We will then be able to determine who qualifies for protection and at what cost to the State. I have said this before, and I say it again, that there are certain establishments which enjoy protection from the State while some of those establishments are not playing the game and are in fact taking excessive profits because of the protection they enjoy. There are without question certain individuals who exploit the protection legislation to their own advantage. As businessmen they make use of a policy and a framework which afford them ample opportunity to do this. I think the hon. the Minister will concur with what I have just said.

It was Hilaire Belloc who said—

Sir, this is a very nice thought but one wonders about its validity today because say you have R400 000 and invest it in a farm and then have to pit your all against the elements, disease, etc., for a very small return, if any return at all. In many cases farmers are getting deeper into debt. Compare that with a person who invests R400 000 in a building in the central business district of, say, Cape Town. He expects a net return of not less than 15%. On top of that his capital appreciation is far higher and quicker than that of the farmer while his risks are far far less. The businessman who makes this investment receives a far greater profit than the farmer at a much smaller risk. It is indeed the member of the business community who can afford those overseas trips, and who is today actually buying a weekend farm to use as a tax shelter. When one considers the two investments one must ask oneself whether there is any fairness in this position. I do not think so. Therefore we should count ourselves extremely fortunate still to have men and women who are prepared to risk their all against the elements and against all types of odds, odds that would make most men wilt. Those people are prepared to take these risks in order to ensure a way of life and to provide the necessary food for the nation. I believe that the farmer, or the producer, and the consumer are not getting a square deal in this country.

I should just like to highlight the position of the beef farmer. It has already been discussed by previous speakers in this debate but I should like to analyse it in more detail. I should like to refer to the situation as it is at the moment in Natal, because it is the farmer, or the producer, and the consumer who are losing out in the present situation. I do not say this tongue in the cheek. The farmer obviously knows that, to obtain the highest possible price when he sends an animal to the abattoir for slaughter, it is in his own interests to try to have the carcass graded as Super? The farmer puts a bull to cow, which carries her progeny for about nine months before calving. Then the calf stays with its mother for six months until it is weaned. It will then be put out to graze for another six months, after which it will be intensively fed until it is about 15 months old and ready for the market. It is then loaded onto a truck or a train and sent off to the abattoir. Obviously the farmer has no control over the way in which that animal is handled on its way to the abattoir. Eventually the animal arrives at the abattoir. On arrival after a day or two the animal is slaughtered and immediately skinned. Then the farmer’s fate rests in the hands of the man who examines the carcass and assesses the ultimate grade. That is the long and the short of it.

Hopefully, if the animal has not been bruised and is in excellent condition, it will receive a Super Grade stamp. Now, however, comes the rub. If that animal for some unknown reason has been bumped around on the way or been bruised by another beast at the abattoir while waiting to be slaughtered, the bruised portion will be cut from the carcass and that carcass will either be divided with the damaged part being down-graded or the inspector in his wisdom, if he feels that way inclined, can down-grade the whole carcass. The carcass is then put up for auction. This is where I believe the abattoir is not giving the farmer a square deal.

A cataloguing system has been devised over which the farmer has no control because his fate lies entirely in the hands of the inspector and the compiler of that catalogue. Each morning the abattoir prepares a catalogue of the carcasses to be auctioned and under the new system the description of the carcass is definitive.

But the farmer can insure the animal against bruising.

Unfortunately I do not have time to reply to that now. I shall come back to it later.

The buyer never sees the carcass, but the catalogue in front of him will describe it in precise numerical terms, including measurement of fat, conformation, age, bruising, grade, and all other technicalities that can help the buyer—take note, the buyer—to judge precisely the type of carcass for which he is bidding. The buyers are very astute people, and with their knowledge of the grading and the cataloguing system, the buyers will always determine the true worth of a carcass. In fact, merely from conformation details in the catalogue, notwithstanding the fact that a carcass might have been graded as Grade 2 or Grade 1, the buyer will assess that carcass and it may well in his opinion be Super Grade. Consequently the buyers are in fact at a distinct advantage. They can buy what is officially declared to be a Grade 1 or Grade 2 carcass when it should in fact have been graded Super. Let us make no mistake, that carcass will be put on the market as a Super Grade carcass. It will be sold to the hotels as such.

What happens next? The position is that the abattoir and the abattoir commission take their cut, and the Meat Board and the S.A. Agricultural Union take a chop—excuse the pun. In the process we should also not forget the agents as well as four or five other levies and charges that have to be paid.

Order! I am sorry but the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Whip for his kindness.

As I was saying, we must not forget the agents as well as the four or five other levies and charges. The farmer still has to pay his transport costs which depend on the distance he lives from the abattoir. In order to get some idea of what these charges could be in total let us just consider the following examples of deductions made from the typical cost of 20 young oxen consigned to the Cato Ridge abattoir by a Natal farmer. For the carcasses he received R7 332, for the hides R330 and for the offal R488. The offal is distributed by a monopoly, the Natal Offal Distributors, which is owned by the largest wholesalers with Meat Board representation. The wholesale price of offal currently varies from a minimum of 40 cent for the trimmings up to R2,50 per kilogram for the oxtails and tongues. A point to remember is that the farmer received the flat 14 cents for his offal. That is all he received, no more. Therefore, for his 20 carcasses, including the hides and the offal, the farmer grossed R8 152. However, once his costs were taken into consideration, the cheque he received from the abattoir amounted to less than R7 000. If one takes that amount of R7 000 and compounds it, one finds that by the time the meat has reached the butcher and the retailer has paid for it, the amount that the consumer has to pay is closer to R25 000 or R30 000. I have here in my hand an advice from the stock owners of Natal. It is an invoice that was sent to a farmer who had sent 10 calves to the abattoir. Of the 10 calves, nine were sound and were graded grade 2 and grade 3, and the other calf was condemned. For the total mass of 268 kilos, plus hides and offal, the gross amount due to the farmer was R253-06. By the time his charges were deducted namely, abattoir charges, R80; slaughtering, R20-90; transport, R46; MCB special, R13; insurance premium, R7-59; commission, R10-12; feeding, R3-68 and abattoir commission, 68 cents, a total of R129, we find that the farmer received R71-09 for his calves. If we work this out per kilogram we find that the farmer received 27 cents per kilogram for the consignment of nine calves that were accepted. I should like any hon. member to go to any butcher shop in Cape Town or in any other city and see whether he can obtain veal for below R7 or R8 per kilogram. If he does, he will be lucky. All I want to ask the hon. the Minister is whether he is happy with this position and whether he realizes what the position is. I am sure that the hon. the Minister cannot be satisfied that the producer is getting a square deal and he cannot also be satisfied that the consumer is getting a square deal. I say to him that if he is not satisfied then he must do something about it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast identified the problem, and I think he put it very well. Unfortunately, he did not offer a solution, and that is really the problem. It is not difficult to make a statement. Finding the solution is the difficult part.

Escom was established for the purpose of supplying sufficient electricity as cheaply as possible for the Economic progress of South Africa. It is estimated that electrical energy comprises 23% of the total energy consumption in South Africa at present. Furthermore, it is expected that by the year 2000, Escom will have to provide 40% of the total energy requirements of the country. In addition, it is estimated that in view of the annual growth rate of 2 to 4%, the demand for electricity will increase at an average of 7,3% per annum until the year 2000. In 1982 Escom’s electricity sales constituted more than 93% of all electricity sales in South Africa, and approximately 60% in Africa. Therefore it is important that the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs recently appointed a commission of inquiry to investigate all aspects of the supply of electricity in South Africa. I think this investigation would benefit the whole of South Africa, as well as Escom. I should like to ask this commission of inquiry to give special attention to the electrification of the rural areas, and the electrification of our farms in particular.

One of the criteria that could be used to measure the increase in the supply of electricity to the rural areas, is to determine the length of power lines of 22 kw and lower. In 1962 there were only approximately 7 000 km of these power lines. There were 13 000 km in 1967; 36 000 km in 1972; 50 000 in 1977, and in 1982 there were 80 000 km. There has therefore been an increase of 60% in this respect over the past five years. As a result of the marked increase in the price of fuel, particularly during 1973-’74, and then again in 1978-’79, the rural consumers found that their diesel generators had become uneconomical, and the demand for Escom power increased tremendously. Therefore one can understand why there has been an increase of 60% over the past five years.

Escom, in turn, has given this high priority, although such a programme is tremendously labour-and material-intensive. Despite this restriction, Escom has been able to instal 4 400 new farm supply points during 1982, an increase of 8,6% in comparison with the previous year. There is a tremendous demand for electricity in the rural areas. As an example, I could point out that at present there are five schemes under construction in the Rand/Free State region. This includes more than 400 points. Escom has already accepted 31 schemes, which include 3 000 points. In addition, there are 23 schemes, which include a further 3 000 points, at the negotiating stage. 42 schemes, involving 2 500 points, are still being investigated. We have the same demand in respect of the other five regions.

Recently I saw banner headlines in the Press to the effect that Pretoria’s electricity is to become very expensive. The report reads inter alia as follows—

In comparison, I should like to read an extract from a scheme to supply the farmers in the Smithfield district with electricity. The following are the conditions—

According to the example I shall quote later, this means that the deposit will amount to R1 512. The third condition is—

Furthermore, the price of energy can be adapted to the cost of coal and the relevant monthly extension fee will extend over a period of 23 years. An extension fee of R4 500 per annum will therefore be payable for 23 years, and this gives one a total of R103 500. It is also possible to make a nonrepayable cash contribution instead of paying monthly extension fees. This amounts to the enormous sum of R37 500, if paid in cash.

The following example serves to illustrate the implementation of the standard tariff and monthly extension fee. For an average home with a stove, geyser and outbuildings, the basic levy is R12; the cost of energy; R111,84; and then there is a tariff surcharge of R4,95, whereas the monthly extension fee amounts to R375. The monthly total therefore amounts to R503,79.

I am aware that a discount of 40% is already incorporated in this quotation.

I should like to know how many of our farmers can really afford to pay R503 per month, or even only the extension fee of R375 per month for electricity for a period of 23 years. How much scarce and essential capital is being extracted from agriculture in this way, at the expense of other important inputs?

The issue here is not the basic levy, nor the price of energy. It is not even the connection fee. The issue here is the high extension costs over such a long period.

Much has been said in this debate about the depopulation of the rural areas and about resettlement there. If we wish to bring about and ensure a greater density of population on our farms, and if we want to check the migration to our cities, by people of colour as well, this must be given earnest and immediate attention. I therefore ask that the Ministry of Agriculture, together with the S.A. Agricultural Union, carry out an in-depth investigation, through a commission of inquiry, into the supply of electricity to our farms.

Mr. Chairman, I do like speaking after the hon. member for Smithfield has spoken. I am in complete agreement with what he said about the provision of electricity to farms.

I want to refer to the hon. the Minister’s opening speech yesterday in which he gave us the assurance that he would not allow the farmers of South Africa to be delivered into the hands of monopolists. Those are words that made a very great impression on me. I appreciate the hon. the Minister’s assurance. It was indeed very good news, because there is a tendency, which is increasingly manifesting itself, for large institutions systematically to swallow up the small farmer, just as the small business undertakings are also being swallowed up.

The hon. the Minister also referred to a White Paper on agriculture which would be tabled next year. I am very grateful to him for that. I would be especially glad if there could be a chapter in that White Paper about the difference in the price a farmer gets for his products and that eventually paid by the consumer. In between there is a gap as wide as God’s mercy. One often wonders what happened to that portion between the producer price and the consumer price. It is simply terrible.

I also want to refer to the provision of certain by-products by Government bodies—here I am thinking of Sasol and Foskor at Palaborwa—to the fertilizer industry. It would also be a very good thing if mention could be made of that in the White Paper. According to information at my disposal, it seems as if far too high a price is being asked for those by-products. Eventually it is the farmer who must cough up.

The co-operative movement in South Africa is a movement I am very familiar with. It is a movement that cannot be praised often enough. There was a time, many years ago, when the farmers did not have a place in the sun in South Africa, and it was the co-operative movement that give them that place in the sun. It is therefore a good thing to take an increasingly deeper look at the co-operative movement so that it, in turn, can properly look after the interests of the farmers.

Recently I asked a question in the House about extension officers. This is a matter which, in my opinion, should receive the utmost attention. According to the reply to my question, there is one extension officer for virtually every 429 farmers in South Africa. That would be the situation if all the posts were filled. At present there are 207 posts for extension officers in the country as a whole, 44 of which have not been filled. Because of this shortage there is, at present, one extension officer for virtually 556 farmers. Even if no vacancies existed, and all the posts had been filled, what this would nevertheless amount to is that it would simply be impossible for one extension officer to serve 429 farmers at present. Extension officers are absolutely indispensable, particularly for young farmers just starting out. Extension officers occupy one of the most important key posts in agriculture. Those officials deserve praise and appreciation because, notwithstanding the fact that they have to serve so many people, they nevertheless manage to fill the posts with such distinction. With the qualifications needed to be able to occupy a post as an extension officer, I think one should take a serious look at the question of their poor salaries. If their salaries were to be adjusted, it would be easier to fill the posts. We should try to appoint at least twice the number for which posts exist at present.

Our farmers in South Africa are very honourable people. That is why they are inclined to believe people and to trust them. Sometimes their trust is such that they go under as a result of it. Our farmers, as I have said, are inclined to trust people too much. Sometimes they receive goods on their farms and accept, without question, that the weight and quality are as they should be. Farmers are often cheated as far as the weight of goods delivered is concerned. I can give you the assurance, Sir, that thousands upon thousands of rands are lost each year as a result of the fact that goods of the wrong weight are delivered to farms. It is usually the small farmer who is the victim of certain suppliers—I emphasize “certain”, because I am not generalizing—who are busy with large-scale exploitation in this field. Here I am thinking specifically of goods such as concentrated fodder, salt-licks and similar products.

I believe a platform scale is absolutely indispensable, and no farmer should try to get by without one on his farm. Many people do not realize this, because they trust other people. Not everyone has the money to purchase a platform scale, and in these difficult times the smallest serviceable platform scale for any farm costs approximately R600. I think that in this field extension officers could perhaps do some excellent work by encouraging people to properly weigh the goods they receive on their farms. I know of cases where shortages of up to five kilograms per bag of concentrated fodder were delivered to a farm. At a glance nothing seems to be wrong with the bag. Then I am not even talking of moisture content. One must take a serious look at this matter. In the case of mass deliveries the problem is even worse. In that case one is not dealing with individual bags. In such instance, for example, one has to go to the nearest large scale on which the vehicle can also be weighed. Such a scale is frequently situated at some distance from the farm. The firms who are guilty of this are, however, finally never the guilty parties! One always finds that it is the scale “which is the cause of it all”. It is funny that the scale never indicates too much, but always too little. These days scales are absolutely indispensable to the farmer. I therefore want to advocate that if a request is made for a loan in order to purchase a scale, the loan should please be granted immediately.

As far as quality tests are concerned, let me say that Act No. 36 of 1937, as amended, makes provision for such tests. I should like to ask whether it is not possible to implement the Act more strictly so that more regular samples can be taken and quality tests carried out. If regular samples were taken of registered products delivered to farmers, this could probably save many farmers from going under. The farmer does not have the necessary facilities for analysing samples. If he is very busy, he does not have the time to send the sample away to some place where it can be analysed either. Therefore I should like to ask whether the department could not also keep an eye on this. I repeat: Not all those who trade with farmers are rogues—far from it. There are, however, certain people who are guilty of such malpractices. I am the last to want to generalize in that connection, but I believe that many farmers in South Africa have already gone under because they have trusted people too much.

A great deal has already been said about meat. According to the National Meat Board, meat producers have just had a very difficult year. As a result of the drought there was a large supply of livestock being offered for sale. Because of the fact that the consumer was also feeling the pinch of the recession quite severely, he also had to cut down on meat. The housewife had to buy less. Farmers had to cut their livestock totals drastically. Many farmers were even compelled to reduce their breeding stock. Eventually this is going to catch up with us. This drought is a disaster for South Africa. We sincerely hope that there are better days ahead and that the drought will soon be over. Red meat could, as was said on the radio this morning, be a rarity by the end of the year. Let us hope and trust, however, that better days are coming as far as that is concerned. As far as abattoir costs and so on are concerned, the hon. the Minister has made many announcements with which I agree. The Jacobs Committee also recommended taking a very serious look at this. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, during this debate reference was made, quite a few times, to the principle of self-sufficiency in agriculture. In his opening address yesterday the hon. the Minister also pointed out, and quite rightly too, that self-sufficiency, as far as agricultural policy was concerned, stretched quite a bit further than the borders of the Republic. Our point of departure and our policy of self-sufficiency do not stop at the borders of this country. I want to support the hon. the Minister fully in his view of this. It is important that this policy in agricultural production be continually pursued by any dynamic agricultural industry, in harmony with the environment and the land, so that the principle of self-sufficiency does not become absolute. In the implementation of this principle one must guard against self-sufficiency being pursued at the long-term cost of the producer and the industry. This brings me to the point that discipline will have to be incorporated in our administered price policy, specifically to prevent us from encouraging production in areas where it cannot be justified.

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke says that today there is still quite a bit of marginal land on which crop-farming is done and that it is frequently these farmers who have a difficult time of it when things become tight. That is a very interesting point the hon. member has made, and in that connection I should also like to refer to what the hon. member for Lichtenburg said earlier this morning in the debate. I am not a maize farmer or an expert on circumstances surrounding the maize industry and, besides, I take no pleasure, as a junior member of this House, in politically unmasking such a senior member. What one cannot allow to pass unnoticed, however, is the fact that a senior member of the House palpably plays to the gallery and has half-truths recorded merely for political ends. I very briefly want to deal with what he said.

He referred to the position of the maize farmer in 1973. He stated what the turnover was, what the costs were and said that the total gross margin was about R420 million. He then compared the position in 1981. As a scientist the hon. member ought to know that he has furnished incomplete figures. He ought to know that by furnishing incomplete facts he is creating a completely wrong picture. May I ask the hon. member why he did not also, in his comparison, say what surface area was involved in the production in 1973 and what surface area was involved in 1981. That is very important. Did the hon. member not ask himself whether the 1973 gross margin did not specifically give rise to too much marginal land being placed under production in 1981 and whether that was not a contributory factor to the poorer gross margin position? I find it a pity that such a senior member proclaims such half-truths. I think the hon. member for Innesdal was quite right when he said earlier in this House that those hon. members tell half-truths and then, for the rest, fill people up with a lot of hot air.

Seen as a whole, agricultural production in South Africa seems to be a success story. If one looks a bit closer, however, there are quite a few problems in regard to which the State and the farmers have a role to play. Speaking of circumstances within the farmer’s control, and circumstances beyond his control, it seems to me as if many farmers rely unnecessarily heavily on the circumstances beyond their control, giving too little attention to those that are within their control. Yesterday the hon. the Minister also briefly pointed out that in future the farmers would have to ensure that they were adequately trained and equipped for their function, and I want to support him in that.

Observation would seem to indicate that knowledge and technology available to the agricultural industry at any particular point of time, is very unevenly distributed amongst the farmers in that industry. This seems to be borne out by disparate production results from various farming enter prizes under otherwise comparable circumstances. In my view there is a twofold reason for this. In the first place, as far as the farmer is concerned, there are the various individual and personality characteristics pointing to the differences between farmers and entrepreneurs, as risk-carriers and as industrial leaders. A factor which cannot be viewed independently of this, however, and which in my view is a fundamental aspect as far as this is concerned, is the administered price policy of the past. I want to submit that the cost-plus basis for price-fixing, to ensure a competitive gross margin per hectare, does not contain built-in incentive discipline for increased efficiency. Because of our strategic food-production position in Southern Africa, supply and demand on the world markets has very little effect in the fixing of prices. I want to issue the warning that as producers we shall have to discipline ourselves and prepare ourselves for the fact that in future we shall not, for the economic justification of an industry, solely be able to rely on price increases. We shall, to a much larger extent, have to exploit the other component of profitability, i.e. increased efficiency through improved technology. In the past two years we have seen how we have come to the and of price-fixings linked to the inflation rate.

I want to make one last submission, i.e. that the administered price policy of the past did not contain sufficient incentives to compel the insufficiently trained, non-functional, lazy and frequently prosperous producer to be more efficient.

Mr. Chairman, in spite of many problems with the agricultural industry, problems which have been pointed out today and in the past, in the hearts of a very large portion of our population there is a kind of built-in hankering for the land. Everyone in this country, so it would appear to me, would like to own a small piece of land, even if only to keep a sheep, a goat, a cow and a horse to look at over the weekends. That is everyone’s ideal. No doubt this derives from our historical background, because of the fact that we have chiefly been an agricultural people. It is very interesting to note that when we put State land up for sale as economic farming units, we advertize the land and wait for applications. Unfortunately we have very little State land to offer in this way. When we do so, however, the number of applications always far outstrips the number of available erven. Let me point to one specific case. In 1981, for example, we advertized 17 economic units for allocation in the Coligny district. We received approximately 1 300 applications, and at least 60 of those applicants met the strict selection requirements of the Agricultural Credit Board. There were consequently quite a few who would not have qualified, but 60 of them met all the requirements. The majority of those applicants were lessees, share-croppers and farmers on economic units who had already proven themselves in farming.

What is actually of importance—and this is the statement I should like to make—is that a request was made in this debate for us to give our young farmers a chance. I want to make it clear that it is completely in line with the policy of the Agricultural Credit Board and the department that we should establish people on the land at a relatively young age. The average age of the 17 farmers selected in that specific case was 36 years. I think that is a good average age.

As far as the valuation of land is concerned, something to which several hon. members referred, I should like to sketch the position from the point of view of the State. We cannot, of course, encourage land speculation, and so when we allocate land and grant loans, this is done in accordance with a realistic agricultural value. And what is that? The agricultural value is that value which, in the opinion of the board—and this is scientifically determined, by the Land Bank too—could offer the borrower a decent living and which, at the same time, he could pay back over a certain period so as not to be a further burden on the shoulders of the State. Therefore we cannot ever deviate from this principle, not as far as the Agricultural Credit Board is concerned, and I think the Land Bank would also adopt this view. We can never deviate from the principle that when we grant loans, we do so in accordance with the agricultural value and not the market value.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North asked us to bring the market value more closely in line with the agricultural value. If this were to be a natural process, if the market value were to decrease and move closer to the Land Bank value in a natural way, we would be very glad about it. It worries me that land prices are completely out of proportion to the agricultural value. In fact, I believe that this is one of the problems that agriculture in South Africa is experiencing. It would, of course, have to be a natural process. The State cannot, however, adapt the farming or agricultural value to the market value. That we definitely cannot do.

A few hon. members raised certain matters to which I very briefly want to reply. The hon. member for Ventersdorp—unfortunately he is not here at present—asked that the Land Bank and the Agricultural Credit Bank should grant loans to part-time farmers. This is an idea which I—and I believe the hon. the Minister too—regard with great sympathy. It is also an idea which deserves special attention, more particularly in these times when agriculture is experiencing such great problems. I believe there are many cases where one could, on merit, grant loans to part-time farmers, i.e. people who have an occupation and also farm. The practical implementation of this policy is not, however, an easy matter, because it is very difficult to draw a distinction between a bona fide part-time farmer and a professional man who simply buys a small piece of land for his own recreational purposes. I want to tell the Committee, however, that we are working on this idea. In the process we shall also be consulting the S.A. Agricultural Union about this.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp also asked us to consider introducing a subsidy on the transportation of livestock in the drought-stricken areas. There may be certain arguments in favour of that, but we have particular problems in this connection. The National Drought Aid Committee, on which the S.A. Agricultural Union is represented, has considered this matter on various occasions, and we could not agree on introducing a subsidy for the transportation of livestock. The simple reason for that is that our drought aid measures, and particularly our long-term drought aid scheme, is focused on soil conservation. If one were now to introduce a rebate on the transportation of livestock, this would simply mean transferring livestock from one part to another, where one would then have an overload, which would then frustrate the whole principle of soil conservation.

What about the maize-fields of the hon. the Minister?

The hon. the Minister will use his maize-fields to supply fodder for his own livestock. In giving further consideration to the policy of the transportation of livestock and a rebate on such transportation, we find that it would be en exercise that would be very difficult to administer, and we have consequently not yet seen our way clear to doing anything about this.

In connection with the hon. member’s question about reducing the period of carryover debt from six years to four years, at a lower interest rate, let me say that this is a matter which we will indeed have to discuss with the S.A. Agricultural Union, because this scheme was designed in consultation with the S.A. Agricultural Union. We shall also have to approach the Treasury, because this would embody further financial implications, but it is indeed something that one would be able to consider in the future.

The hon. member for Barberton referred to the repopulation of the border areas and expressed his appreciation in that connection. He also asked for the same principle to be applied in other areas. The hon. member will know that when we began with the population intensification of certain areas, we initially tackled the project on too large a scale. We also found tremendous land speculation developing, and we therefore eventually had to disband this scheme. After some consideration, we decided that if one wanted to introduce such a scheme, one should do so in smaller areas—as we have indeed done in connection with the 10 km strip—where this could be introduced on an experimental basis. Any scheme of this nature has initial growing pains that can be a source of experience for us so that we can gradually—if that scheme is successful—transfer it to other areas. The benefits offered in the designated areas above one can actually compare with decentralization benefits granted to industries.

The hon. member for King William’s Town and the hon. member for Nigel spoke of the inadequate extension services and said the farmers should manage their own extension services. We acknowledge that we do not have enough extension officers. Hon. members know what the reason is—salaries! The public sector cannot, after all, compete with the private sector when it comes to salaries. More attractive offers are made to these people and we simply lose them. That is how simple it is. We do, of course, need many more of these extension officers.

The hon. member for Beaufort West raised the question of the establishment of district drought committees. He also asked about the grazing capacity or carrying capacity of homogeneous areas. An hon. colleague said we would never see the words “grazing capacity” in common usage, the words “carrying capacity” being too strongly entrenched. Those surveys have virtually been completed and will be released in about three months by way of an official publication. The determination of lifestock units, in which the race, sex and age of farm stock are taken into consideration, has already been released by way of an official publication.

The idea of establishing local or district drought committees is, of course, closely linked to the new drought aid scheme in which they must play a very important role. The idea was that we would establish such drought aid committees wherever necessary so that they could be intensively informed and trained for their task, because they will have a special task to perform. They will have to undertake certain monitoring projects. They will also have to make certain recommendations. In an nut-shell, they will be very important committees in the community. We shall, however, be getting round to that in due course.

The hon. member for Wynberg is not here at the moment, but he did raise a few matters. He spoke, amongst other things, of cropfarming on marginal land.

He is probably attending a sitting of a Standing Committee.

He also spoke about the location of abattoirs. I think I have already dealt with the question of abattoirs.

He also spoke about cultivation quotas. What it comes down to, is that if we were to put his requirements into practice, the State would have to prescribe a land utilization pattern to farmers, something we have never wanted to do in South Africa. We have never wanted to tell anyone exactly how he should employ his land. I see the hon. member has returned. For his benefit I just want to repeat that if we were to prescribe how our land should be used, one would have to do what certain other countries do. I am of the opinion, however, that this is something we would have to approach with a great deal of consideration.

This morning I asked: To what extent do we want the State to intervene in agriculture? To what extent do we want to relinquish our independence? I do not think it is right for the State to have to act prescriptively when it comes to the use of land. I think we must convince people, by way of the extension work we do, with the final decision always remaining with the entrepreneur.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North spoke of the valuation of farm-land. I think I have already dealt with that.

I just sincerely want to thank all hon. members who took part in this debate and touched upon matters, for which I am responsible, for their contributions, which were generally of a very high standard.

Mr. Chairman, after a long, two-day debate it is not always possible to reply in detail to all the questions which hon. members put to me or to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I want to say at once that there are certain matters to which it is not possible for me to react effectively now. For example, I have in mind here the matter which the hon. member for South Coast touched upon. To my mind it seems to be a serious problem and I want to ask the hon. member to come and discuss the matter with me personally. I undertake to see whether I can do something about it.

The hon. member for King William’s Town, who is not present at the moment—he apologized for his absence—also raised certain matters to which I should like to react. Normally the hon. member makes very responsible speeches on agricultural matters, but yesterday he kicked off here by making certain statements in respect of the control over control boards. He said control boards were under the control of political elements. If I remember correctly, he referred to the Broederbond. I do not know what the hon. member’s problem in that connection is, yet I think it would be a good thing if I made it very clear for the record how the nominations for and appointments to control boards take place, so that there need be no further lack of clarity in this regard.

The Marketing Act provides that members of control boards shall be appointed by the Minister. It is the responsibility of the Minister. How is this done? Although this is what the Marketing Act determines, a convention has developed over the years—this is a practice which has existed for many years—that the Minister consults the various specialist organizations in the industry and that they in turn make recommendations and submit a panel of names to the Minister. Usually this is done in the form of a first, a second and even a third choice. Normally the Minister appoints the first choice. If the first choice is not to his liking, he may possibly refer the matter back to the relevant committee. So I just want to make it very clear that the Minister is not involved in such political appointments. He uses the panel of names submitted to him by the organization in the industry.

The hon. member was also concerned about the fact that certain activities in connection with drought assistance were slow in getting off the ground. He expressed the idea that the regional director should play a greater role in this process. We shall look into the matter. I want to say that the present drought assistance system does not make provision for that. However, it is something which could subsequently be implemented.

The hon. member for Vryheid referred to the question of permits and quotas. This is a very important aspect, particularly in Natal and, I think the Southern Cape, where one has the position that most market supplying arrangements are made on a quota basis. They are made on a quota basis because in those areas there are very strong and well-organized producers’ organizations that are able to transmit the necessary information to the Meat Board on a continuous basis so that the board can arrange the supply of stock to the market in an orderly way. As a result of the tremendous marketing pressure in bringing about proper co-ordination and a flow of stock to the various abattoirs, it is necessary for the Meat Board to work in terms of a permit system. Yet this has caused great dissatisfaction among producers. Talks were held with producers and they objected vehemently because they did not want to forego this method. I myself had talks with the Meat Board and we are now satisfied that the quota system can remain as it is at present because at this stage it is the most effective system for the farmers. The Meat Board accepted this. The argument which is advanced is that if a quota system were to be introduced one would not be able to rationalize properly because farmers themselves, through their own organizations, organize the flow of livestock and they would like to keep those powers in their own hands. I do not want to say that this is the final answer. We shall in any event, have to discuss the matter again at a later stage.

The hon. member for Heilbron made a speech here on silos and the silo industry. In particular he said that we should take a look at macro-silos. In this connection I think he referred to the silo at Richards Bay. The idea, also one of Nampo’s, is that when we have a good maize harvest we should have macro-silo facilities with a view to the export trade, which would in turn link up with larger silos in the interior. Then the grain could be brought rapidly to the export silos by way of block trains so that when conditions in the market are favourable one can take quick advantage of them.

The whole silo building programme and rationalization of the silo industry, if I may call it that, was referred to a commission of Inquiry, the Reinecke Commission. That commission consists of many competent people who have a very sound knowledge of the silo industry. Naturally the investigation into the silo industry affects not only maize, but all types of grain. At present I have the report of the commission at my disposal and I can tell the hon. member that we shall consider the ideas that have been put forward. We shall also try to test Nampo’s idea of rapid export systems and we shall examine how this fits in with the whole industry. They themselves of course intend appointing a committee to investigate this matter. My promise to these people is that after we have studied the report of the commission we shall assess the position properly.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South also made a very interesting speech, to which I wish to react briefly. He discussed the rationalization of control boards. He said it was necessary for the grain boards to be brought in under one roof. He also said that the fruit industry should be rationalized and that there should be fewer boards in that industry. As regards the rationalization and co-ordination of control boards, I can tell him it is a question that has been investigated very seriously and intensively. At present we are dealing with 21 boards and the commission proposed, inter alia, that the then Milk Board and Dairy Board be converted into one board. This was done and it is working effectively.

The commission also examined the Dry Bean Board. That board has a floor price system which administratively is not very complicated. The year there is a surplus of beans one introduces a floor price, but in the year there is a shortage of beans, as at present, there is no floor price, for then the market normally absorbs the entire crop. However, this did not happen. Evidence was heard for days and the system as it works in practice was examined. The statement was made that these people were, so to speak, building their own empires. This may in certain cases be true. In most cases the process of specialization which came into existence with the passage of years in order to be able to market effectively and purposefully, is so extensive in a board with its administration that it is very difficult to simply throw boards together now. I agree with the hon. member. I do not think that it is out of the question for all time. There is the possibility that we could look into the matter again. I want to tell the hon. member that as the Marketing Act reads at present, it is not a law of the Medes and Persians. If it becomes necessary it can be re-examined. Certain principles in the Marketing Act are to my mind, unnegotiable, yet this problem can be examined.

The hon. member also spoke about subsidies on essential foodstuffs, such as bread. The hon. member for Paarl referred to the wheat industry and told the House how effectively the control of the Wheat Board functions. In spite of the subsidy applicable to the end product, our bread is nevertheless among the cheapest in the world. We have here a one-channel fixed price system which shows one how effectively it can work in a marketing situation. The hon. member said it was wrong. He mentioned the wrong figure. In actual fact the bread subsidy amounts to R193 million. I think that approximately 1 500 million loaves of bread are sold in this country annually. Approximately 1,2 million tons of wheat are processed for that purpose. Annually 3 million tons of white maize are utilized for human consumption. The hon. member said that one should rather take the bread subsidy and add it on to the maize price.

Part of the subsidy.

In other words, the subsidy on bread must not be removed entirely?

Not entirely.

That is an interesting point. It is an argument to which one can give very serious consideration. I have already received representations in this connection. On the Government side we must be careful that we do not subsidize a food product to such an extent that it is able to compete unfairly with another product. I do not wish to say that the bread subsidy should be abolished. In fact, I think that the bread subsidy is extremely important, because the consumption of bread is increasing all the time, and it is doing so for a specific reason. Bread is a product which a worker can consume immediately, maize is not. The Black people have to get up early in the morning to cook i and prepare it. It is their traditional food. Yet bread is being marketed in ever-growing quantities. I want to tell the hon. member that it is perhaps necessary for us to abolish some of these food subsidies so that one does not have this unnecessary competition between various products.

The hon. member Mr. Theunissen apologized for not being able to be here. He spoke about his part of the world and is of the opinion that there is a great deal of water in the lower Crocodile-Marico area. He thinks that the possibility for irrigation development there is very good. I think he should discuss this matter with my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs. As the hon. member knows, considerable support is given to irrigation schemes. My department also renders assistance in this connection. According to my information, however, this particular area has no water. The hon. member will have to clarify the matter further with the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs.

The hon. member Mr. Odendaal spoke about part-time farmers, but I think the hon. the Deputy Minister has already replied effectively on that topic. It is a practice which will increase in South Africa. There are areas in South Africa which are semi-industrial areas. These are areas which are partly suitable for agriculture and partly for industry. I am thinking now of the eastern High-veld where there are many coalmines and power-stations scattered over a large rural area. A position could develop there in which the smaller farmers could take a part-time job when difficult circumstances arise, for example drought conditions as we have this year. I think the Land Bank and the Agricultural Credit Board are entirely sympathetic when such a situation arises and when some of these young farmers are able to help themselves in this way. Consequently I think that the question of part-time bona fide farmers, if I may put it that way, is systematically becoming an accepted practice. We shall have to see in what way we can organize and formalize it better.

I come now to the hon. member for Lichtenburg. This hon. member introduced a rather discordant note into the debate. We had a very positive and pleasant debate. The hon. member also tried to be positive, but he allowed himself to be led astray by the terrible urge which he has to derive political benefit from every debate. I shall leave it at that and preferably deal with the actual arguments which the hon. member used. I think it is necessary for me to react to them. What the hon. member actually did was to object to the meagre increase in the consumer price in South Africa of 9,5%. Inter alia, the hon. member’s argument was that everything was going up, so why could not the consumer price, or in this case the selling price of maize, not go up as well? He asked: Why is it increasing at such a low rate? The fact of the matter is that the hon. member has to add the 9,5% to the R118 million which the State is paying to make the consumer price of R170 per ton possible. If one adds that, the consumer price comes to R199 per ton, an increase of almost 28%.

The hon. member advanced a further argument. As a matter of fact, it was not an argument. It was merely a statement, but it almost felt as if the hon. member was telling one something that he was not really putting into words. The hon. member said that the production costs this year were R366 per ton and that these should be recovered in some way or another. It cannot be recovered in any other way than by means of the consumer price, the selling price. We moved away from the cost-plus system a long time ago.

What about the Maize Board’s price?

Yes, that is just as drastic an increase, but the hon. member did not say what the Maize Board’s increase should be. He did not discuss the R195 per ton, which is 25%. He did not say whether he supported it. He only referred to the R366 per ton. This is a production cost increase as against the previous year of 98,6%. If this had to be adjusted to the consumer price, one would arrive at an amount of R320 per ton. The hon. member did not say this, but one could deduce this from all the things he did say. These are the actual facts. [Interjections.] The Maize Board price was an increase of 25% to the consumer, and if one still adds the R118 which the State contributes, because this is simply another indirect way …

The consumer does not pay it.

He does pay it. The taxpayers are all consumers on an indirect basis. The point is, and the hon. member must go and tell it to his people: Does the hon. member for Lichtenburg expect a Minister of Agriculture in a year such as this, while maize producers themselves are also consumers, to announce such a drastic increase? Surely that would not be fair at all. The hon. member ought to discuss the matter with the hon. member for Barberton so that he can hear what that hon. member has to say about it. The hon. member should also discuss the matter with the maize farmers in his own constituency. I want to put it to him that I received expressions of gratitude and appreciation from his constituency for the present maize price. I also received thanks from the producers because the net producer price increased by 25% this year; an increase of R33 per ton. However, there is a tremendous shortage of maize, and so this price does not help much either. What must therefore be done in order to determine a balanced price for the farmer who does in fact have something to sell, so that he can at least receive a proper price for it, while at the same time we also bear in mind all the hundreds, even thousands of farmers who are experiencing an emergency situation in South Africa?

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, I am the responsible Minister. The hon. member for Lichtenburg merely sits on the side-lines and criticizes me. He can do so if he likes; I do not mind. However, he must be fairer and more equitable in his criticism. [Interjections.] If the hon. member wants to argue with me, I am quite prepared to do so. In fact, I have always considered the hon. member to be a person with whom one can conduct a proper argument.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also apologized for not being able to be here this afternoon. He spoke about the tremendous tariff increases of the EEC. This is one of our problems in the agricultural industry. How we are to deal with it, is a very difficult question.

The hon. member for Humansdorp discussed the dairy industry. He is very definitely an authority on this industry. He stated that we should not allow milk substitutes to be imported into South Africa. Most of the substitutes which enter the country, particularly skim-milk powder, are imported illegally. The Dairy Board discussed the matter with me in the presence of the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. We are instituting an investigation into ways in which we can close these loopholes. However, there is one basic problem, viz. the tariffs on skim-milk powder. When it enters the Republic it costs between 80 cents and R1 per kilogramme, while milk powder in South Africa at present costs R3 per kilogramme. As long as that situation continues and those products are able to enter the country at loaded tariffs it is difficult to solve the problem. That milk powder enters the country in all kinds of ways. In any event, I am negotiating on the matter with the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism in order to establish whether we cannot devise a plan. One of the methods we could apply, for example, would be to reconsider section 87 of the Marketing Act. The Department of Agriculture is perhaps in a better position to deal with this matter. For example, it is more easily able to identify the illegal products. In this way the department could perhaps be placed in a position to act by way of seizure. However, this is a very drastic measure and one does not really wish to use it. Be that as it may, we are negotiating on this, and if we can succeed in solving this problem, we will also be solving major problems in regard to the large surpluses of milk-based products which we have at present in South Africa. This also creates major problems for the Dairy Board. Its Stabilization Fund has already been depleted.

The hon. member for Gordonia tried to promote what he referred to as a Year of the Farmer. I think it is a very meritorious idea, a splendid idea. The hon. member for Meyerton, I think, associated himself to a certain extent with that idea. It could be a splendid idea, particularly when we are entering what promises to be a fine year. It could even perhaps be organized as a festival, when we once again have a good year throughout the country, when the dams of the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries are all full, and the grain is growing well on the lands. Then it would be ideal to organize a Year of the Farmer, also out of gratitude for and in admission of powers which are higher than our own.

The hon. member for Nelspruit referred to farming as a small business undertaking. I can tell the hon. member that agriculture is strongly represented on the regional liaison committees working with the economic regional development systems, and to the best of my knowledge they are making important inputs to see in what way decentralization benefits could also be transferred to agriculture and last but not least, possibly to the border farmers near the national States who are experiencing major problems and making great sacrifices. We are investigating this matter.

The hon. member for Wellington, who is an authority on the fruit industry, discussed the canning industry. This is an industry which has been creating problems for us for quite a number of years. Personally I think that the canning industry, after the rationalization steps which were taken, has perhaps reached a level now where we can say that it is stabilizing. I think we learned one lesson from the fruit industry, particularly when the tree-felling scheme began. It is that one should be very careful not to apply drastic measures if you wish to scale down the structure of an industry. The producers tell me that the pendulum has swung the other way to a dangerous extent, and this could mean that large capital investments in the fruit industry could be harmed in this process. I think an amount of something in the region of R400 million has been invested in canning factories alone. This year we rendered assistance, as we did during the previous year. We are going to pay surcharges on peaches and pears. We are also going to investigate the matter of the tin plant. The hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism has already approved the payment of a further subsidy to Metal Box so that the price of tin which is the most expensive item can be reduced so that it is possible to compete with overseas countries. We are still propping up this industry. I also wish to add—these are the recommendations of the Jacobs’ Committee which referred us to the South African Agriculture Union—that further co-ordination must take place in the fruit industry. Perhaps this ties in with the hon. member’s idea. We do not know what rationalization is going to take place there, but in any event it is for the farmers themselves to discuss the matter and to come forward with recommendations.

The hon. member for Paarl is a great authority on the wheat industry. He asked that we should raise our milling supplies from a four months’ supply. At the moment we have a large surplus of wheat which, if we have to export it, will entail major losses. I think it would be a good idea if we introduced an intensified stockpiling policy, or a “Joseph’s policy” as the hon. member put it, for the wheat industry.

Before I conclude I wish to react to one further matter. The hon. member for Queenstown made a very important speech in this House yesterday. He discussed agricultural policy. It was my privilege to be able to announce yesterday that we hoped to be able to table a White Paper next year in order to try to bring about more stability with an agricultural policy which could be adapted to the specific circumstances and to the future. I have certain guidelines which I do wish to outline to hon. members, and which I do not think can be omitted from such a White Paper either. These are existing standpoints of policy, these are anchors which one cannot destroy, and I think it is necessary for me to elaborate on this a little further.

In our agricultural policy there is something which one could term an ad hoc element. This is an element which one cannot remove. I should like to furnish an example. There will always have to be ad hoc assistance in respect of emergency measures. The position is that no two droughts are the same. They always differ. There is a policy in respect of drought assistance which we have had for years. There is a drought assistance scheme which has existed for 30 years, and if drought conditions strike, we apply it. However, the way in which the assistance is rendered is ad hoc. Consequently one cannot eliminate the ad hoc element entirely. There is also the question of floods. In the case of a flood, which can also take the form of a disaster, we render a completely different kind of assistance. What I am saying therefore is that it is not possible to lay down a fixed policy in this connection.

On the other hand there is in fact a policy which can be laid down, over and above the ad hoc aspect. It is a more permanent policy, a kind of bureaucratic policy, consequently a policy which one administers with all kinds of policy instruments, such as interest. The policy of optimum soil utilization has been known to us for years. It was a policy which was announced at the time by ex-Minister Uys. It is a comprehensive, a crucial concept which contains three elements, one of which is to bring agricultural production into action without affecting the agricultural resources. Consequently production must take place in harmony with the agricultural resources. Another important leg of the policy is that agricultural resources should be utilized economically.

The idea then developed that to speak of optimum soil utilization actually meant that one was dealing with a concept which was too narrow; it referred to the physical. The idea was then expressed inter alia by the Director-General, Dr. Immelman, in a paper which he presented last year, that we should find another concept for the purpose of agricultural policy. He then came forward with the idea of optimum agricultural development, which is a far more descriptive policy and tends to a far greater extent to emphasize the economic side of agricultural development in South Africa. We are subjecting this idea to an intensive scrutiny. The departmental heads concerned have already held a two-or three-day conference on this matter to see how one should formulate this agricultural policy further. It is easy merely to talk about a White Paper, but to draw up a White Paper, taking into consideration all the various facets, is quite a scientific task. Nevertheless I have every confidence that the department will in fact be able to prepare a very effective document for this House.

I spoke about certain anchors which we must make an integral part of this policy. The first is that we should adhere to the standing policy of a system of optimum agricultural resource ultilization, as is at present being administered by the department, and which has been developed with all the supporting legislation. I am referring here in particular to the Agricultural Technical Services component, which in the early ’seventies was still a separate department. I maintain that this system should be retained. It is in particular the principles contained in these measures which should form one of the anchors of the policy. The principles are once again that agricultural production should take place in harmony with the natural environmental factors, and in addition that it should never take place at the expense of the natural resources. We are building on these proven principles. In the White Paper which we will table, these proven principles will also be taken further. I should like to refer to some of the laws which underpin these principles. There is the Soil Conservation Act, the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act and the Agricultural Research Account Act. The latter Act makes provision for all our research institutes, some of which are internationally renowned. Someone said that research remained one of the most important life supports of our agricultural development.

There is a second anchor, namely orderly marketing and price stabilization. In this connection there are six Acts which are administered by the department. The most important of these have already been referred to quite often in this debate. There is, firstly, the Marketing Act, which prevents major instability occurring in the market. The principles of the Marketing Act will therefore have to be recognized, and will have to be used as an instrument in the proper implementation of any agricultural policy. I think the Marketing Act is flexible. If necessary it can be adapted to advance this policy. It is an enabling Act, by means of which a diversity of schemes can be incorporated, even in a more market-related economic system.

It is important to note that an orderly market also seeks to stabilize the inherent problems of surpluses and shortages. Whatever agricultural policy is being implemented, we shall always have to deal with surpluses and shortages in South Africa. Consequently the Marketing Act will remain necessary.

Most of these schemes—and this is a very important point—originate through negotiation and as a result of representations by farmers themselves. They make a very important input and have a say in the agricultural policy in South Africa. A Ministry cannot create agricultural policy in its totality. There are certain external influences of which one must continuously take cognizance. It is the task of the Ministry of Agriculture—this is a practice which was initiated by my predecessor—to negotiate as regularly as possible, on a regular basis, with organized agriculture on various facets of agricultural policy, if one wishes to call it agricultural policy. Inter alia there are negotiations with the control boards as well. From time to time there are negotiations with those organizations in the industry which are the support of producer representation on the control boards. Consequently there are external factors in one’s formulation of policy. Formulation of policy therefore comes from outside the Ministry as well and for that reason it is tremendously important that one should accord recognition to them in one’s formulation of policy.

Another important Act aimed at bringing about economic stabilization is of course the Co-operative Societies Act, an Act which is administered by my department. This is most certainly another of the anchors which will have to become an integral part of and be recognized in the formulation of a new agricultural policy.

There is a third anchor which will have to become an integral part of such a policy, namely the anchor of financing and the rendering of assistance. The Agricultural Credit Act will definitely have to play a greater role in South Africa than it is playing at present. In saying that, one is at the same time saying that if one wishes to have greater effectiveness in respect of financing, one is laying claim to a large volume of Treasury funds. Because farming units are increasing in size as a result of economic circumstances, something which is not always within one’s control, this is no longer merely the problem of the small farmer. Even middle-ranking farmers will have to be supported in some way or another with a form of financing which will protect their credit standing and place them in a position to have working capital available so that they may produce economically. The hon. the Deputy Minister works with this matter and he has already come forward with various proposals and ideas. I think an amendment to the Agricultural Credit Act to make provision for a revolving fund is a very good idea. However, to impart momentum to this revolving fund so that more capital can be developed in the process, is of course a long-term policy. We shall have to try, in some way or another, to make the revolving fund stronger so that one is able to accommodate a larger percentage of farmers at Agricultural Credit. As I have said, heavy demands will be made on the Treasury account in this connection. The Government will of course have to adjust its priorities in this connection. However, the White Paper will quite probably have to quantify the volume of funds involved.

Another very important financing institution is of course the Land Bank. The hon. member for Meyerton and other hon. members paid special tribute to the Land Bank for the exceptional work which is being done there. I also think that this is one of the most important anchors. One has to take the Land Bank into account in respect of agricultural policy. It is very closely integrated with the co-operative societies. If Land Bank financing is not effective, it affects not only the individual farmer, but also farmers’ organizations, and specifically the agricultural cooperatives. In fact, it also affects the control board system, because the most effective agents in the control board system are the co-operative societies themselves because they support many of the schemes in question. I want to say at once that if one does not look at the co-operatives in conjunction with the Marketing Act, one is ignoring a sound combination in the overall agricultural development strategy. We shall therefore have to examine this matter closely.

I maintain that agriculture is a living industry and we must keep it alive for the sake of the whole of South Africa. I now wish to thank hon. members for their very constructive speeches in this connection. I resolved to go through the Hansard of this debate very carefully. I want to admit candidly that to become Minister of Agriculture in circumstances such as those which are prevailing this year, makes tremendous demands on a person. I want to say at once that the support which I received, in particular from the S.A. Agricultural Union and from the farmers themselves, contributed to my being able, in my human frailty, to tackle the problems of agriculture to the best of my ability. One is not only dealing with the physical aspects, but sometimes with the phsychological aspects as well. It is not easy to travel through drought-stricken areas and see how one’s fellow-farmers are suffering.

On the other hand I also received support from a wonderful, loyal department. One realizes that although a Minister has many powers and decision-making rights, the value and quality of such things depend to a very great extent upon the advice, the assistance and the administrative support which he receives from his department. I received however much I wanted. It is available to me every day, every hour and, I would also say, at any time of the night. For that I thank Dr. Immelman, the Deputy Directors-General, the Chief Directors and the Directors very sincerely for their assistance. I am certain that we shall become a very good team to serve agriculture as I hope to serve it in South Africa.

I also thank hon. members for the pleasant debate and I thank hon. members on both sides for their support. Personally I think it was a very fruitful debate. I am very grateful for that.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is a great honour and privilege for me to introduce the Second Reading of this Bill in the House today. I have had a long association with the University of Natal, first as a student and later as a member of the staff for 10 years—hence the honour it is for me to introduce this Bill.

I am sure that it will be of some interest to hon. members in the House if I give a brief review of the historical background of the university.

Tertiary education came into being in Natal in 1910 under the auspices of what was then the Natal University College. Some tertiary education had been provided prior to this in the college schools, but it only really came into being in 1910 with the establishment of the Natal University College due to the hard and dedicated work of a group of people, the majority of whom were in Pietermaritzburg. It flourished after that due to the dedicated staff whom they were able to recruit.

The Natal University College first opened in a two-roomed wood-and-iron shack in the grounds of what is today Maritzburg College, a well-known school in Pietermaritzburg which I am sure most hon. members will be familiar with. The student numbers during that first year were only 57 and, in fact, after the first year this number decreased during the 1914-T8 war.

The move to the current premises which are now occupied by the university on the Pietermaritzburg campus took place in 1913. It may be of some interest to members that student fees in that first year were R3 per student per month. There was almost no State assistance to universities then.

Higher education in Durban at that stage was given by the Natal Technical College and education there was mainly limited to commercial and engineering subjects. Durban was a more important commercial centre then and the powers that be decided that these subjects were more relevant to the needs of a developing city like Durban. It was only in 1931 that Howard College was opened and the Durban campus of the Natal University College came into being. Initially they took over the task and the functions of the Natal Technical College and concentrated mainly on commercial and engineering subjects. It was only in 1946-’47 that full-time arts and science classes were also duplicated in Durban and Howard College became the university in the fullest sense.

Natalians have always been aware of the fact that culture and the arts took somewhat longer to reach Durban. I apologize to my colleagues from Durban, but the facts seem to bear this out.

It is interesting to compare the facilities that were available in 1946 to the facilities our students are used to now. On the Pietermaritzburg campus, there were only four playing fields and no changing facilities of any nature whatsoever. The Durban campus had no sporting facilities at all.

In 1948 the Natal University College had progressed far enough to get the status of a fully-fledged university in its own right. During that year the University of Natal (Private) Act was passed and Natal University came into being as we know it now. It may be of some interest to hon. members to know that this was the last Act that was passed during the period that Mr. Jan Hofmeyr was Minister of Education. This Act was repealed in 1960 by the University of Natal (Private) Act which is the Act that we are amending today.

At about the same time, i.e. in 1947, the University acquired its own medical school which provides for the training of Black and Indian doctors. Hon. members will be aware of the considerable contribution that this medical school has made. In 1949 the Pietermaritzburg campus acquired the Faculty of Agriculture and it is perhaps appropriate, seeing that we have just finished the agricultural debate today to remind hon. members of the considerable contribution that this faculty has made. During the late ’forties and early ’fifties, the university went through a very serious crisis in that it had a fairly low number of students. The duplication of facilities at Durban and Pietermaritzburg proved to be an extremely costly way of running a university and there was a move at that time to move the whole university to Durban. Thankfully this did not take place and since those days the university has grown extremely rapidly to an enrolment figure of some 9 000 today, 6 000 of whom are in Durban and 3 000 of whom are in Pietermartizburg. The staff has increased from a full-time establishment in 1920 of some 71 members to a full-time establishment today of 931 members.

During its lifetime the university has seen Natal grow from a frontier colony to the modern complex society which we see today. Just to give an example of the extent to which Natal was a frontier colony in the early 1900’s, a speech by a prominent member of the Natal Legislative Assembly at that time objected to the waste of public money on high school education, which in his view did not prepare boys for life or work in the colony. This was in 1907. Happily, there were other people who did not share his views at that time and they persevered with the establishment of the university.

The university has made a considerable contribution to the development of Natal and to South Africa as a whole. In 1981 there were some 1 250 first-time graduates and 440 graduates with higher degrees. The university has also placed considerable emphasis on post-graduate scholastic achievements. An indication of this is the 490 articles published in an internationally recognized and accredited journal, articles which were written by members of the staff during 1981. This, of course, does not include papers read at conferences and other symposiums. I think this is a clear indication that the university has lived up to its motto of Stella aurorae which means “star of the dawn” or “star of the rising sun”, symbolizing the role which the university plays in dispelling the darkness of ignorance.

I should now like to turn to the subject matter of the Bill we have before us today. The university is extending its academic activities in respect of the training of teachers and pharmacists and in future may even wish to do so in other respects. It is doing this in conjunction with the Edgewood College of Education at Pinetown and with the Natal Technikon. In order to do this, it is necessary to amend the University of Natal (Private) Act, 1960, in order to provide for the recognition, for degree, diploma or certificate purposes, of the training given at certain other institutions of higher education, and to empower the university to enter into agreements in connection with the training of students; for example, agreements with the Natal Provincial Administration.

The Bill now before the House contains an addition to section 23 of the principal Act in order to make provision for this.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to follow on the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. He has stated that he has close ties with the Natal University. He was a student of that university, and he also lectured in the Department of Agriculture of that university for a number of years. The Pietermaritzburg campus of the Natal University is also in his constituency. I should also like to thank the hon. member for the interesting background information he gave of the history of tertiary education in Natal.

I support this Bill on behalf of this side of the House. The principle introduced by this measure into the University of Natal (Private) Act is an accepted principle, which has already been incorporated into the statutes in respect of other universities. It provides for the recognition, for degree, diploma or certificate purposes, of the training, or portion thereof, given at a technikon or other institution with a division of higher education. It clearly has merit, and therefore I support it.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting this amending measure. The introductory speech by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was very interesting. I do not want to repeat what was said by the hon. member Mr. Schutte, and this legislation does not allow one to say a great deal about it without repeating what has already been said. Consequently I just want to say that it gives us pleasure to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to associate myself with the sentiments and comments expressed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. At my alma mater, the University of Natal, which I attended for a number of years—I am referring now to the Durban campus of the university—I derived great pleasure and benefit from my association with that university.

I also had some very interesting experiences while I was at Natal University. As hon. members know, my professor of economics was the present hon. the Minister of Finance. [Interjections.] I cannot understand why he disagrees with me on so many occasions for I am merely giving back to him what he taught me in those years. Secondly, I had a most interesting experience when I studied sociology because my lecturer there for three years was in fact none other than Dr. Jooste, who is today the editor of Die Patriot [Interjections.] He obviously did not benefit from the wisdom of Natal University. [Interjections.] Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, the other interesting contact I had there was that for one year my tutor in political science was none other than Prof. De Crespigny, later a member for a time of the President’s Council. [Interjections.] With a liberal education like that, I feel that all students of Natal University are well equipped to cope with any exigency in life.

Turning now to the Bill itself, Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the amendments contained in this measure, not only because it is a university for which I have a very strong feeling but also because it formalizes for the first time in the history of the Natal University the intergral relationship which should exist between university and technikon. This is something for which we have pleaded before because we believe that tertiary education should be a continuum and should not consist of two separate, divided organs of education, namely technikons and universities. Therefore it is a great pleasure for my party to welcome this amending legislation and to give it our full support.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank all hon. members who have taken part in this debate. I am delighted that they all see their way clear to support this measure.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.