Mr Chairman, I think that everyone knows the A-Team. In the Ministry of Defence we also have an A-Team. This morning I just want to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to the officials of the Ministry of Defence. I want to congratulate Brig Opperman, our former Military Secretary, who has left the Ministry. He has accepted command of Northern Transvaal Command. His place has been be taken by Col Anton van Graan. We wish him everything of the best in the performance of his task.

Without these officials in the Ministry, the hon the Minister and I would not be able to furnish our present level of service to the electorate.

This morning I want to bring a very urgent matter to the Committee’s attention. Let me say that what is bothers me is that in certain circles indiscriminate statements are being made about our allegedly no longer needing a prepared Defence Force. There are even those who are agitating for the scaling down of the Defence budget. Discussions about this are necessary, of course, but emotional rhetoric and slogans simply confuse and mislead people.

One such example of emotional rhetoric is the slogan about “more butter and fewer guns”. Let me say that these two matters are not in opposition to each other. It is, of course, the State’s task to see to both. The Government must ensure the security of our people so that we can have prosperity in this country and can experience that prosperity. Without security there simply cannot be prosperity and development, and without stability there simply cannot be constitutional change along constitutional lines.

I want to emphasise very strongly that the SA Defence Force is extremely sensitive about the handling of its finances. The Defence Force’s record in this connection endorses this statement, because we are, in fact, serious about economising and increasing productivity. During the debate on the Additional Appropriation the hon the Minister of Defence pointed out that since the 1985-86 financial year this department has never asked for additional money. It was only when 15 000 additional Cuban soldiers and advanced armaments were brought into Angola, and owing to the costs involved in withdrawing from South West Africa, that we were forced to request additional funds:

Over the years the Defence Force has proved that it is very sensitive about the handling of its financial affairs. It will also continue to deal very circumspectly with the money allocated to it by Parliament.

What are the realities and the facts when we speak about Defence spending? One reality is that it is our prepared, motivated security forces which have, through the successes they have achieved, paved the way for discussions to be held. That is as plain as a pikestaff. No one is going to hold discussions with us if they can force their will on us in some other way. Without a prepared defence force there is no foundation for our diplomacy and negotiations.

A second reality is that the negotiations concerning South-Western Africa do not mean that peace has suddenly descended upon South Africa. No! It has merely set a process in motion. It is a process that can lead to peace, but lasting peace has not yet manifested itself.

Swapo’s infiltration across the northern border of South West Africa is a flagrant violation of the agreement, and proves again the maxim that he who wants peace, must be prepared and ready even to fight for it if necessary. We must therefore also be prepared to defend the peace process that has been set in motion.

The process of Cuban troop withdrawal is still in progress and will only be completed in 1991. The peace process does not actually affect the position in South Africa itself. There is still a revolutionary onslaught against the RSA. That has not disappeared; on the contrary, it continues and may even intensify.

A third reality is that one can never relax one’s preparedness. We must continue to keep a watchful eye on developments. We must always be strong and prepared. Our security forces are like an insurance policy. Surely one does not contact one’s insurance broker when the roof of one’s house is already on fire. One takes out a policy in good time, and one pays one’s premiums regularly.

A fourth reality is that in conjunction with other security tasks we have adopted a pre-emptive posture. We sought out terrorists in their dens so as to ensure that the lives of others were protected, and that property and infrastructure were safeguarded. In the future we shall do so again, if necessary.

As circumstances change, the posture adopted by the security forces must adapt to these changes. This requires a revised structuring of manpower and armaments. Such an investigation was specifically announced by the hon the Minister yesterday. The necessary investment must be made to protect our national interests and safeguard our people.

During the discussion of the Additional Appropriation the hon the Minister said, in the light of the expected intensified onslaught on South Africa, that we should increase our investment in our security forces.

A fifth reality is that the arms embargo against South Africa still applies. These days we cannot simply purchase arms off the shelf. The armaments and equipment we need in order to guarantee our security, we ourselves must provide. Armscor and its partners in the private sector must design, test and manufacture what we need for our security.

As an example let me mention the G5 and G6 artillery systems and the Rooikat, which have specifically made possible the peace negotiations now in progress in South-Western Africa. Approximately 10 to 15 years ago, however, we had to provide for the necessary capital expenditure.

In order to have a peace process now, we had to make those investments a decade or so ago. In order to have peace in 10 or 15 years’ time, we must still be in a position to speak and negotiate from a position of strength. This requires a present-day investment in the security requirements of our country.

†A sixth reality is that the primary aim of the SADF is to prevent war and not to wage war. To do this we must have a credible deterrent capability. It is therefore essential that South Africa has at its disposal a well-equipped and well-trained defence force which possesses the required deterrent capability to discourage foreign aggression and the export of revolution.

The SADF is also responsible for border protection and control. It also has to assist the South African Police in the maintenance of internal security. This was mentioned yesterday by the hon member for Bonteheuwel. This is to ensure that the future of South Africa will not be determined through terrorism, but will be decided upon through constitutional means.

A large part of the weaponry of the SADF dates back to the 1950s and the 1960s. One reaches a point where it is no longer possible to update or modernise it effectively. One also reaches a point where it becomes impossible to maintain such obsolete weapon systems economically. The implementation of the negotiated settlement plan does not alter the fact that the necessity to replace these obsolete weapon systems still exists today. To meet the challenges of the 1990s we have to enter into long-term commitments during the 1980s. In order to play our role as a deterrent to prevent war and to defeat attacks if war cannot be prevented, we need a well-equipped and a properly-trained defence force. This is our insurance policy for peace and stability and a prerequisite for democracy and change through constitutional means.

*We must not be lulled by this euphoria of peace into a situation in which we cannot meet our financial obligations towards the SADF. If we were to do so, it would not be possible to maintain, guarantee or preserve the peace, the prosperity, the development of our country and our civilised values and norms in the future.

In the few minutes I still have at my disposal I should like to refer to what was said in previous debates yesterday by the hon member for Over-vaal. He referred, inter alia, to 31 March and 1 April 1989. I stand here this morning as a witness to what happened during the night of 31 March and on 1 April. I saw how competent Ministers such as the hon the Minister of Defence and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs put South Africa’s case there. In my quiet moments I thanked the Lord that South Africa had people of their calibre in the Government, people who could look to the country’s interests with such a sense of responsibility. I thank the Lord that it was not the hon member for Overvaal, the hon member for Soutpansberg or even, as an afterthought, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly who had to negotiate there on behalf of our country. [Interjections.]

Are your prayers political?

The hon member for Overvaal speaks about etiquette. That hon member does not know what etiquette is, inside or outside Parliament. He has not even read what I said last year in my speech. I referred to the derogatory way in which he, his party and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly had insulted troops of colour serving in the operational area and also the hon the State President. [Interjections.] I referred to the visit to South West Africa by that hon member and his sons when he behaved in a way in which well-brought-up people would not behave. That hon member speaks of etiquette. I think the only etiquette (etiket) that hon member knows is the label (etiket) one finds on a tin or a bottle.

Mr Chairman, no one will disagree with the hon the Deputy Minister when he makes a case for this country, as in any country, to have an efficient and effective defence force. This morning in the very few minutes at my disposal, I want to test the hon the Minister in particular, and his party of course, on their vision for South Africa in regard to its defence commitments.

Hopes have been aroused by the change of leadership in the NP that this country may be on the verge of breaking away from a securocratic system to a more democratic system. I think there is no better place to test those hopes than in a debate on the Defence Vote.

We have long been aware of the disadvantages sometimes in having a professional soldier as Minister of Defence. We know that other governments have tried it before but very often the vested interests which a professional has in war, fighting and the build-up of a military power have been found to be so strong as to cloud his objectivity and usefulness when it comes to striking a balance between the defence needs and the civilian and other needs of a nation.

I hope that I am wrong about this hon the Minister. I think he has been Minister of Defence for ten years now. I hope that I am wrong and that he will show in this debate that perhaps he is able to adapt, both to the defence and the civilian needs of the country.

However, one has had the feeling that very often he shows very little understanding and feeling for the parliamentary process. More often than not, he tends to display a simplistic parade ground arrogance in his attitude towards the civilian representatives of the people. We saw some of that yesterday. His essays into political debates are as basic as that of the most junior party hack. He showed this in his comments yesterday in his attack on the DP and particularly on the hon member for Constantia. However, I hope that he will improve. There is always room for improvement and I hope that he will show some improvement.

That is why I ask him in this debate to show that he has an appreciation as Minister of Defence for civilian needs, that he can wear a civilian hat and that he has a duty as much to the civilian needs of the nation as he has to its military needs.

I want to know what his vision is for South Africa. He has been highly successful through the years in persuading his Cabinet colleagues, his Government and the hon the Minister of Finance to give him vastly increased funds for defence spending year after year. He is still successful even at a time when our economy is in dire straits, and most other essential social and community services have been restricted because of it. In the light of the conclusion of the Angola involvement and the pending disinvolvement in Namibia, does this hon Minister hold out any hopes that the defence budget will represent a lesser slice of the whole budget in the years immediately ahead? If not, is it to be a never-ending commitment which, while being totally inflationary, will be justified forever as being a constant necessity as it had been in the past when the hon the Minister has used emotive terms such as total onslaught against South Africa? I would like to know what the future holds in this regard. For example, does the hon the Minister still believe that South Africa is being confronted in a total onslaught? Some of his remarks yesterday, when he referred to the effect of glasnost and the moves between the Eastern and Western Blocs, would indicate that perhaps he is not so committed to the notion that South Africa is faced with the total onslaught as he has been.

Looking at his vision, I want to ask him to look at the subject of compulsory national military service, namely conscription. I raised this in the Budget Debate last week when I asked the new hon leader-in-chief of the NP to tell young South Africa what hope he holds out for them in this regard. I received no reply in that debate but I would like to ask the hon the Minister of Defence to give us his views on this.

We welcomed the announcement he made yesterday of an ad hoc lessening of commitment of national servicemen in respect of camps. This has been widely welcomed throughout the country and I give him credit for it, but I want to know how he views the defence structure of South Africa in the long term in relation to the continued involvement of young people in the compulsory conscription which has been operative in South Africa for so many years.

He will know that it has placed a tremendous burden on the lives of young people in South Africa. It has been disruptive of their lives as well as of the economy. I believe it is high time that the whole question of conscription be reviewed, and I trust that the hon the Minister will give us some assurance on this matter.

He will know, if he has any sensitivity at all, that the burden has become more and more intolerable to more and more young South Africans, and has had a totally frustrating effect on their ability to contribute to the economic and business life of the country. It is a situation which has also driven thousands of young South Africans, some of our brightest young men, out of the country because of its seemingly endless consequences for them and their daily lives.

The concept of conscription is not, of course, traditionally South African. As far as I am aware, there was no conscription in the old republics. There was certainly no conscription for South Africa in the two world wars, which perhaps is just as well for the NP and their ilk of the time; otherwise they would have shown themselves to be soft on security and soft on patriotism. If it is not a traditional South African concept, does the hon the Minister insist that, having been introduced by the NP Government, it should remain a permanent feature of life in South Africa, or are alternatives being looked at?

Our attitude to conscription is perfectly clear. We are opposed to it, but we have to recognise that thanks to the Government it is at present a vital element in our existing defence structure and cannot, therefore, be ended abruptly, but we do believe that immediate steps should be taken to phase it out as soon as possible. We urge the Government to do this.

We believe that SADF needs can be adequately served by a larger regular standing army backed by volunteer reserves recruited on a non-racial basis to provide reserve troops in the case of a sudden escalation of threats against South Africa and to preserve the military traditions of our part-time forces.

This should present no problem to the SADF, because it has admitted frequently that it regularly receives far more applications to join the Permanent Force than it is able to cope with. I wonder if the hon the Minister will indicate whether he is thinking in terms of lifting or diminishing the compulsory commitment to conscription and looking at the other alternatives in regard to South Africa’s defence needs.

Our opposition to conscription is based on extremely sound reasoning which was repeated yesterday by the hon member for Sandton, the new leader of the DP defence group. We believe that it is restrictive; that it does not take into account the fact that there are no adequate alternatives to compulsory conscription; that the questions of conscientious objection and of alternative service are not properly addressed; and that it is far too restrictive. The burden which conscription places on South Africa’s young men is therefore totally unreasonable. I hope the hon the Minister will respond to these comments.

Mr Chairman, one almost gained the impression yesterday that the new party in the new guise would make a positive contribution to defence, but that hope unfortunately faded away altogether with the contribution of the hon member for Berea. I intend to deal in some detail with some of the points which he raised here today.

In the limited time at my disposal I should like to touch on certain other subjects which have a bearing on this debate, and particularly to the Defence Force’s recent history in South Africa.

In relation to the entire South West Africa/Namibia issue we have, during the current debate and during previous debates in which both this hon Minister and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs have taken part, heard a success story in which the Defence Force, as part of the security forces, has played a key role.

Of course, this story is far from finished, and it would be foolish to predict that it would be possible to write this story from now until after an election in South West Africa without any setbacks. The propaganda war against South Africa, in which South West Africa remains the most important target, is far from over. In fact, it will rear its head in many other fields. An example of this is the allegations that are being made by a new group in the USA, known as “SA Now”. This group has compiled a so-called documentary programme with regard to alleged South African atrocities on the local population as well as on Swapo members who crossed the northern border in direct conflict with existing agreements.

Only a fool would not view Sam Nujoma’s actions with regard to the breaking of the agreement as a calculated move. It was most certainly not a decision taken by Nujoma and his fellow Swapo leaders alone. In saying this I am not attempting to lay the blame on any of the other parties to the agreement. I wish to make the point that Nujoma does not take any action, and has never taken any action that was not supported by international propagandists and an orchestrated propaganda effort. Since he now has to discount a considerable loss of prestige in the eyes of the world, the efforts of the group “SA Now”, which is making an appeal to world opinion, must be viewed in this context. The propaganda onslaught on South Africa has not abated, nor will it do so. The Machel aircraft crash and the transparent attempt by the antiSouth African media to lay the blame on South Africa, is still fresh in people’s minds, as is certain distorted reporting on alleged incursions into Angola. As recently as February the American Department of Foreign Affairs had to deny that South Africa had been involved in such an attack.

The SA Defence Force has been labelled as the destabiliser of Southern Africa, whilst everyone in this House ought to pay tribute to this very organisation for the stabilising role which it has played and continues to play in this part of the world. A new label has now emerged in internal politics and the hon member for Berea made use of that label this morning. The hon the State President made brief reference to it last Monday, namely the role of the so-called securocrats in our public administration.

I could hardly spell out the phenomenon of this word better than Ken Owen of Business Day spelt it out in an article of 10 April 1989. The hon member for Berea would do well to go and read that article. I shall quote from where he referred to the State President in fairly unfriendly terms, although not specifically that quotation. I quote:

The hon member must take cognisance of this. The label that is now being applied to hon Ministers, Defence Force leaders and officials who are performing an enormous task in order to ensure stability and safety in this country, is an extremely ungrateful phenomenon in our politics, and one in which he has participated. [Interjections.]

In this regard I should like to turn to certain hon members of the new “progocratic” party. It is a pity that the hon member for Yeoville is not present today during the discussion of this Vote. His standpoints on the Defence Force and safety are often a refreshing breeze from the ranks of a party which has already earned a reputation owing to the fact that it is so soft on security. [Interjections.]

I recall the standpoint he adopted in this House when he repudiated the hon member for Constantia in the speech to which the hon the Minister referred. It is a pity that the hon member for Berea did not also address him in this regard today. Why not? Is he ashamed of his fellow party members? After all, the hon member attempted to protect him in that regard today.

The hon member for Yeoville attacked him when he launched an unbridled attack on the SA Defence Force on the basis of what was, in fact, disinformation. Whereas we have the highest appreciation for the standpoints of the hon member for Yeoville, it is with deep concern that we note the participation of his fellow party members and their hangers-on—I hope they take cognisance of the word “hangers-on”—in the campaign which is attempting to discredit our Defence Force and other security forces. I find it astonishing that he can sit together in the same party, the new progocratic party, with people who support the ECC and the UDF—there are some of them—overtly and covertly, as well as with people who visited Dakar and kowtowed to the ANC whilst bombs were exploding in this country. What does the DP have to say about that?

It is a well-known fact that one of the greatest enemies of our security services in this Parliament, the hon member for Claremont—it is a pity he is not here because I asked him to be present—is able to declare himself prepared to accept the principles and policy of the DP simply in order to draw a free lot in order to be re-elected to the House of Assembly. If they are able to accept that hon member—I understand that they are considering it, but whether this is true or not, no one will tell me—I should like to know how long he will remain in that party because it is impossible for his standpoint on the Defence Force and on security to be reconciled with that of the hon member for Yeoville. I believe that the hon member for Parktown—I see that he is sitting all alone there at the back—was also one of the individuals in that party who believed in the maintenance of order by our security forces. Unfortunately, however, he was also clearly in the way of one of the three musketeers who is urgently seeking a seat in this House.

With regard to the hon member for Claremont, however, I wish to address a few friendly words to him in his absence, and I hope the hon member for Greytown, who is a good friend of his, will convey them to him. I think that he should remain in this House so that we may at least acquire first-hand knowledge of how the UDF and its masters feel about the SA Defence Force and the maintenance of law and order. I want to issue a friendly warning to him that he should not trust these “Progocrats”. They are going to deceive him—that is what I say. They may perhaps accept him, but I do not think he has a snowball’s hope of obtaining a nomination in this party.

I have said that the disinformation campaign against South Africa, and more specifically against the SA Defence Force, will continue. This manifests itself everyday in a massive war of words which is waged daily by propaganda agencies in Africa and elsewhere, and those hon members are participating in this. The SA Defence Force and its security partners are standing squarely in the path of those who wish to overthrow the existing order in South Africa. For this reason those who are involved in the security management system, namely the State Security Council—this is but one of four Cabinet Committees—must be placed under suspicion by the hon member for Berea in our internal politics. Those hon members who are participating in the creation of the new securocrat syndrome—once again I am talking to the hon member for Berea—must know that they are co-operating with the forces of darkness. I now wish to ask why the other Cabinet Committees are not also labelled as some or other form of “-crats”, seeing as they are so conscious of “-crats”—Progocrats, Democrats, or whatever they may be.

Another subject which I should like to touch on very briefly, is the perception that South Africa’s air capabilities in recent years were inadequate to compete effectively in Angola. This was also the subject of disinformation in certain Press organs. To these prophets of doom I should just like to mention certain facts with regard to the campaign at Cuito Cuanovale. Here, according to reports, the SA Air Force penetrated the dense air defence system deep within enemy territory at will. In the process 800 operational flights were carried out. The losses on the part of the Air Force were only one Fl Mirage and a Bosbok, whilst the Angolan air force lost 19 fighter planes, 15 helicopters and at least 3 transport aircraft during the same period.

In the year that has just passed, the SA Air Force created a safe air space in the north of South West Africa, and no enemy aircraft would risk undertaking flights in this area. [Interjections.] Perhaps the hon member on the opposite side of the House should rather speak to the hon member for Yeoville and keep quiet.

For these facts our Air Force deserves the greatest credit in this House.

I should like to conclude by referring briefly to another facet of the balance of power in Southern Africa, namely the existence of Dr Jonas Savimbi’s Unita organisation. We are aware of the fact that all sorts of attempts are being made to drive a wedge between the leader of this organisation and his people. I believe that he continues to play an important role. Allegations are also being made that South Africa has turned its back on Dr Jonas Savimbi. I believe the hon the Minister will, in fact, address this matter and give us clarity in this regard.

Mr Chairman, I first want to thank the hon the Minister of Defence and the SA Defence Force very much on behalf of the people of McGregor for the assistance which the Defence Force furnished during the opening of our new school. I want them to know that both Whites and non-Whites appreciate it very highly.

I also want to take the opportunity on behalf of my constituency to express my deepest sympathy toward the parents, relatives and friends of the three members of the South African Cape Corps, that is Riflemen Kok, Williams and Hermanus of Noupoort, who lost their lives in a tragic way in a road accident last weekend. I also want to wish the remaining 40 members who were injured in the accident a rapid recovery.

As hon members know, although there are those who do not actually want to admit it, the history of this country has been very closely connected with the life of the Brown man in South Africa and still is today. I am delighted to relate a connection for which everybody should give full marks.

Even before Jan van Riebeeck set foot at the Cape—certainly 150 years before the Hollanders arrived here—a very important battle took place between my and perhaps your forefathers and the Portugal of that time. At that time Portugal was trying to expand the spice market in the world and on 28 March 1515 three ships, the Garcia, the Belem and the Santa Cruz, reconnoitred the beaches of “the fairest Cape”, as we call it, in search of fresh water. They were also seeking trade with the local Hottentots.

That day the affairs of the Portuguese went well. So much so, that the Portuguese soldiers took Hottentots, an equal number of men and women, back to their ships with them. A misunderstanding arose along the way and eventually knobkieries and fists were brought into rapid play. Things got completely out of hand and a great deal of blood flowed. More soldiers were hastily taken to the beach.

An unknown Hottentot leader in turn thought that his country was being threatened and in this way the Hottentots sacrificed everything to protect their country. The result of the battle was a great defeat for the Portuguese. In desperation they fled to their ships but had to leave 65 bodies behind. Nothing has changed since then.

The reason for my mentioning this bit of history here is to illustrate again that people of colour have not served this country only recently. I want to go further by saying that my people were even present at the Battle of Blood River, which was one of the milestones in the history of this country, especially in that of the Whites. They were present and they made their contribution. They were the people who ensured that the nitty-gritty tasks within the laager went smoothly. They did not leave Andries Pretorius and his people in the lurch.

During the First World War we played a vital supporting role side by side with the Allies. Once again we did not drop our White compatriots.

During the Second World War we were there again. Our sons and fathers ventured their lives together with White South Africans, although their reward after the war was in most cases just a coat and a bicycle. Many of our young men also made the supreme sacrifice in a South African uniform overseas on the battlefields of Lybia and the Western Desert up North. We served our Defence Force with honour and our people still do so today.

I must further also speak on behalf of my Black brothers who cannot be here today because of the system—but we want to remember them. Do hon members still recall 21 February 1917? That was the day on which South Africa suffered its heaviest loss of life, certainly one of the heaviest in the history of the SA Defence Force. The troopship Mendi collided with another ship and the ice-cold water of the English Channel became the grave of 607 members of the South African Native Labour Contingent. They did not die in vain. We shall always remember them.

In the same way we shall not forget our Brown soldiers either who made the supreme sacrifice on the borders of this country and on the distant battlefields of Tobruk, El Alamein, Flanders, the Somme and many more. Today the Cape Corps is a respected and integral part of the SA Defence Force. Over the years and up to the present the members of the Cape Corps have done their bit wherever they were stationed. The hon the Minister of Defence will confirm how bravely and loyally the men of the Cape Corps accomplish their task on the border.

Is it not high time for everything in the Defence Force to be done without colour connotations? We greatly appreciate what has already been done in the Defence Force. We also greatly appreciate the fact that the Defence Force is one of the departments in which everything is being done with might and main to combat discrimination on the grounds of colour but there are still little things which we want to bring to the hon the Minister’s attention because that soldier in uniform cannot say what we are permitted to say here today. Is it not high time?

We are grateful that the Defence Force regards and also treats our people as equals regarding salary and rank. Nevertheless the ideal would be for us all to be grouped within one corps. Colour should not play a part in placing a national serviceman.

Why can Brown soldiers not do their service as members of other units and regiments, wherever? Why can the Army College at George not be thrown open to Brown people too? I can give a guarantee here today that the Brown soldier would be an asset to any unit because within the Defence Force the Brown soldier forms part of the army fraternity. In the uniform of the SA Defence Force they are first-class citizens, and we appreciate this highly, but, when they move through the gates of the units to the outside world and form part of the social milieu of the South Africa of today, they immediately have to exchange their first-class Defence Force status for a second-class citizenship status because they then become part of a group which is excluded from so many things in the South Africa which they and we love so dearly.

Can the hon the Minister not persuade some of his colleagues in the Cabinet to set the entire colour question aside altogether for once? In consequence of their birth, Brown people are also entitled to call themselves South Africans. Aside from the injustices in civilian life, the members and officers of the Cape Corps, a colonel or whatever, continue their daily tasks. They have never complained; they have always done their duty as it is expected of them.

Bullets, mortars, rockets and landmines know no colour. Our enemies are not concerned when they fire on our forces whether they consist of Brown or Black soldiers. Why can we not always just be South Africans? [Interjections.] Why are our people trusted fully under the most critical and most sensitive conditions to form part of a united front but are treated like second-class citizens at home under normal circumstances? I feel that this type of situation should reach an end rapidly. We cannot endure it any longer and we cannot afford it either.

Our men in the Defence Force have never given anybody cause for complaint. To think that the Brown man is not to be trusted! Has a single man from the Corps every misused his knowledge and background in civilian life? Have any of our Coloured Defence Force men been accused of teaching other people to make bombs and other things? This is the only country they know and, like all present here, they also want a good life for their children. Before this can happen, all hurtful laws must disappear from the Statute Book. Let us join hands and enter the future together, not only on the military front but also in the daily round. This will be the point of departure for all our people. Please trust us; we shall not leave anybody in the lurch.

Mr Chairman, because only a few minutes have been allocated to me I do not intend to comment on the speech of the hon member who spoke before me. However, I certainly do want to say that military conscription is a thorny issue and will remain a sensitive one in the larger South African community, particularly in the community from which I come.

My party is committed to the phasing out of military conscription for White people. As far as the Indian community is concerned it opposes conscription. Because this is an election year may I draw the attention of this Committee and the Indian community to the fact that in terms of the Defence Act and the commitment made by the hon the Minister in 1985 conscription for the Indian community can only take place with the approval and the concurrence of the House of Delegates. I make this point precisely because during the run-up to the elections in 1984, anti-participation forces exploited this issue and asked the community not to vote because, so they said, if they did vote that would result in the young men of the community being conscripted into the defence force. In other words, they argued that participation equalled sending Indian people to the border. This was exploitation of the fears of people of the worst kind and I am pleased that our assurances to the community in this regard have been upheld and that our participation in this regard has been justified. I trust that these so-called anti-participationists will not repeat the immoral and hypocritical actions again this year.

Of course, our opposition to conscription contains the caveat that we are not opposed to anybody serving in the Defence Force voluntarily as indeed many in the Indian community have done—both in the Navy as well as on the border. Let me hasten to add lest the CP and others who fondly imagine that the war against Swapo was exclusively the business of White South Africans that my information is that one in every three soldiers in Angola at that time was not White and that up to 70% of them were in active combat. Let it also be noted that all of them were volunteers. The argument that South Africans enjoy peace and prosperity paid for in blood by White servicemen is therefore simply not true.

I wish now to refer to the so-called South African Berlin Wall that South Africa has built as a death strip and which consists of some 90 kilometres of electrified fence along the Mozambique border. Refugees from Mozambique are regularly electrocuted on this fence. Last year the hon the Minister informed Parliament that 46 deaths had been reported. However, a recently released American State Department report to Congress noted that this 3 300 volt fence had killed no fewer than 68 people and that many more had been severely burned. [Interjections.] This fence is no different—I would like the hon the Minister to reply—to the Berlin Wall because both simply kill people who try to cross the border. Calls have been made to reduce the voltage to safer levels but it would appear that these have fallen on deaf ears. Unless the Government stops electrocuting people, in many cases merely because they are fleeing a civil war in Mozambique, South Africa can justifiably be equated with those who maintain the Berlin Wall.

Finally, I wish to raise the issue of the Defence Special Account which has gone up from R4,6 billion to a mammoth R5,8 billion in the 1989-90 estimates. Quite apart from the fact that we feel that there should have been a substantial pruning of this account now that we are no longer backing Unita and other such groups in this region, we must caution that in general such secret funds lend themselves open to maladministration and corruption. The connection between secrecy and corruption has been well established. The Government would do well to learn from its own history. We are not making accusations but we are simply saying that it is surely a system which is questionable. One could well ask in this regard: Will regional peace bring no benefits to the hardpressed taxpayer? Is it not time that we re-examined our priorities and spread our resources to more important allocations like education?

Mr Chairman, it is with great gratitude and appreciation that I, as a father of four sons, the youngest of whom has just begun his national service, take part in this debate today. In speaking on behalf of the fathers and mothers of our sons of the Defence Force, I do so with great appreciation for the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister, our General Staff and our entire Defence Force.

In saying this, I also ask that the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly should please take note of a mother’s letter in today’s edition of Die Burger. She says that she is one of the CP mothers of whom the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has taken cognisance. Hon members would do well to take note of the letter. It was written under her name. She is not afraid. She has taken note of what a gang like that is doing to South Africa and its security situation.

Dr Malan said on one occasion: “Ideas without the muscle to put them into effect, are useless”. History has confirmed the truth of this statement time and again.

Ever since the establishment of the South African Defence Force, the Defence Force has been the bearer of an idea— the bearer of an idea of sovereignty, freedom and peace; the bearer of a message that an idea without spiritual, economic and military muscle is useless and that it leads only to unnecessary bloodshed.

History, said Miguel de Cervantes, is the custodian of memories of great deeds and the evidence of the past, the example to and the tutor of the present, and a warning for the future. The annals of history abound with the great deeds of our proud SA Defence Force. History bears silent testimony to a small country with an invincible spiritual power, with an invincible message of peace. The history of 23 years of bush warfare, in which 15 000 Swapos and 780 of our own Defence Force members perished, is clearly a tutor for the present and a grave warning for the future—firstly a warning to South Africa itself that peace is a condition which has to be protected, but also that this demands foresight, defensibility, a readiness for battle and preparedness.

Thomas Payne once said quite rightly that he who ensured his freedom had to protect even his enemy against oppression. History is issuing a warning to the countries of Africa to halt the exploitation of their God-given nationalism by foreign powers, with foreign ideologies and dark motives. History is issuing a warning to those who are still setting their sights on South Africa and who still favour the violent option, and who even now wish to bedevil the message of peace in South West Africa.

“Revolutionary violence will be stepped up”, Sam Nujoma recently said. “Effective counter measures by South Africa’s security forces have very obviously led the ANC to reconsider its strategy. The SA Defence Force has a message. Do it as soon as possible.”

The SA Defence Force has just laid the foundation for the greatest diplomatic breakthroughs ever. Indeed a power for peace! Only history will one day rightly be able to interpret the role of the muscle of a small country which played a significant role in the policy changes of major powers, including the Soviet Union, in Southern Africa.

Firstly, more and more leaders believe that the armed struggle is not the way to solve problems in this region. Secondly, more and more people believe that political solutions must be sought. Thirdly, more and more people believe it is senseless to destroy the economic base of South Africa.

A power for peace! To what extent has this contributed to the growing pragmatism among African leaders who are beginning to believe that the realities must be taken into account, that a basis for reconciliation must be found, that viable economic plans must be defined and, last but not least, that a modus vivendi must be worked out in conjunction with South Africa?

South Africa has regained a great deal of esteem in recent times. Strategic high ground has been occupied. Peoples of Southern Africa can build on this; can build a city of light in darkest Africa. We may not abandon these initiatives. The South African Defence Force is indeed a power for peace, formed and forged by the common desire of South Africans of all population groups to live together in harmony and to use their expertise to one another’s mutual benefit.

On the home front South Africa has made a definite choice—a choice to implement constitutional, social and economic reform. South Africa has elected to implement reform which is to bring about the evolutionary improvement of an unacceptable state of affairs so that it will ultimately make a happy home of South Africa for all its people. The nature of reform is the task of the politicians, but the tremendously great role which the SA Defence Force has played in guaranteeing the necessary stability without which reform would lapse into revolution and violence, will be recorded in the annals of history.

The heroic role played by the SA Defence Force at the right time clearly emerged when it showed its iron fist to the outside world and made it clear to everyone not to come forward with unreasonable demands and prescriptions because this country and its people had to live with the consequences. To those who choose to disparage the so-called securocrats—reference has already been made to them—we state unequivocally that our power for peace has a message that speaks very clearly. Like a fist that has been clenched, South Africa— the state and all its organs—acts as a team.

The success of the SA Defence Force is precisely attributable to a balanced approach, to the way in which it succeeds in recognising, acknowledging and evaluating realities and searching for solutions, as well as the way in which it succeeds in remaining cool headed, although ready to continue the fight.

By virtue of an effective JMC system, this “power for peace” is carrying a message into the communities and townships with a firm, yet friendly hand. Depressing slum areas are being converted into dignified homes. The men in uniform are increasingly being regarded as allies. Where freedom songs rang out until recently and necklace murders were the order of the day, the sound of trowels on brick today forms a new song—a symphony of hope for the future.

Wherever people and communities are struck by disasters, the SA Defence Force is there. The SA Defence Force helicopters descend there like angels from the sky to extend a helping hand to the poor victims. No wonder the Bloemspruit Air Force Base, which falls within my constituency, has been honoured with a special decoration for outstanding service in peacetime. [Interjections.] The Free State is indeed proud of the helicopter pilots of the Bloemspruit Air Force Base.

All reasonable people in the country look forward to a message of hope, a message of hope which the Defence Force is conveying with pride and zeal. Every South African realises today that if we fail, the resultant chaos and the disintegration of stability and progress will be held against us. It is therefore our task, as well as the task of the SA Defence Force, to prevent this.

South Africa’s “power for peace” is the last human guarantee that this will not happen. We therefore honour the memory of those who have died for this great message which this “power for peace” has conveyed over the years. We salute our men and women in uniform who will continue to convey this message for many years to come.

Order! Before I call upon the hon member for Pietersburg to speak, I should like to submit something to hon members of this assembly with regard to the conventions of Parliament. It is always very difficult for a presiding officer to decide what must be viewed as a borderline case, and what not. I wish to give hon members the assurance that the acoustics are not always so good that the presiding officer can hear exactly what is being said from the benches. It is a little difficult.

However, I should like to quote the following to hon members from the Manual for Presiding Officers. I should appreciate it if hon members would bear the following aspects in mind. I quote:

†That is quite a long time ago—

That is that they should conduct themselves in a manner befitting the dignity of the House—

*I have given consideration to certain comments made by the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence, and I have also conferred with the hon the Deputy Minister briefly. I wish to say that what he said with regard to the hon member for Overvaal’s behaviour, is most likely a borderline case. However, I think it is fitting that the hon the Deputy Minister should withdraw the comment that the hon member had behaved in a manner which one would not have expected of a person who had been well brought up.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, you have just made the first part of the speech which I wanted to make for me because I wanted to refer with great displeasure to the last minute of the hon the Deputy Minister’s speech. It is my hon leader and the Chairman of our Defence Force Study Group who are involved and I do not think it is fitting … [Interjections.]

Order! It is also a rule that hon members are not permitted to refer to statements that have already been withdrawn.

I shall leave it at that. [Interjections.]

I want to get to the hon the Minister’s speech and those of various hon members of the NP. The insinuation has been made that criticism which the CP has expressed has been aimed at the Security Services and the Defence Force in particular.

That is true!

That hon member says it is true. I shall prove to hon members how untrue it is. I want to state here categorically this morning that, as regards the volunteer corps of the SA Defence Force, the Commandos, and other national servicemen, most of those people are supporters of the CP. [Interjections.]

That is not true!

What good reasons could prompt us to adopt a stand against our own people?

There you go insulting the Defence Force again!

Further, if there is one party in particular in this House which prizes the status and honour of our security forces highly …

… then it is the NP!

… then it is the CP in particular. It is strong on safety, discipline and law and order.

Order! We cannot start a dialogue among parties now. If hon members want to make speeches, the Whips will give them an opportunity to do so. The hon member may proceed.

Let me get to the political heads. What speakers on our side and I have to say this morning is aimed at the political heads and not the Defence Force. I want to give an example now. This is a question which the hon the Minister or the hon the Deputy Minister planted so that an hon member of the Government party, in this case the hon member for Durbanville, could ask it under his name. I am referring hon members to questions of 21 February 1989. This had an exceptionally interesting sequel in the House of Assembly without a satisfactory reply to the question concerned. The only purpose which the political head of the SA Defence Force or his deputy had with this was to leave a cloud of suspicion and lack of credibility and this still shrouds the actual facts concerning Question 6 of 21 February. That question reads:

1. (1) Whether a group of members of Parliament visited Mozambique round about the middle of December 1988; if so, (a) which parties did they represent, (b) what was the purpose of the visit, (c) at whose invitation did the visit take place and (d) who paid for the visit;
2. (2) whether the South African Defence Force made transport available to this group?

The hon the Deputy Minister then replied:

1. (1) and (2) Yes. An SA Air Force aircraft was supplied to a group of the Governing party, consisting of six Members of Parliament and four members of the President’s Council, to visit Mozambique and to conduct, on a confidential basis, discussions between the Governing parties on the political, military and economic situation there. The cost was carried by the Mozambicans and the members of the visiting group.

Hon members should note that the hon the Deputy Minister did not mention at whose invitation the visit took place. Let us analyse these replies now.

He said that an aircraft of the SA Air Force was used but in subsequent questions, as I shall indicate, the Department of Defence denied through the hon the Deputy Minister, as well as the Department of Foreign Affairs through the same hon Deputy Minister, that they had had anything to do with the arrangements or the invitation concerning the six governing MPs and four members of the President’s Council. The denied it categorically. The nearest we could get to the truth was the hon the Deputy Minister’s replies on behalf of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs to a question from the hon member for Sea Point. He replied as follows and I quote from Hansard: Questions and Replies, 14 March 1989, col 348:

1. (a) No, but the Department was informed beforehand of the visit and received a report on the discussions.
2. (b) No.

In (a) it means that he denies that any arrangements were made by the Department of Foreign Affairs but that the department was informed about the visit and subsequently received a report on the discussions, and in (b) that the Department of Foreign Affairs did not furnish the tour group with any facilities.

Arising from this reply of the hon the Deputy Minister’s, I then asked:

The hon the Deputy Minister replied by referring me to his reply of two weeks previously in which he had not said whether other parties had been invited to take part in this tour.

In other words, he confirmed that an aircraft of the SA Air Force was provided for the purpose of permitting members of the Government to conduct discussions with a communist government in a neighbouring country on a confidential basis. The costs attached were for the account of Mozambique and the members of the tour group itself. Surely those are the implications of his reply; no other inference can be drawn.

I put a further question to him. however:

I could also add: “At whose invitation?” The hon the Deputy Minister then replied as follows:

I contend that the hon the Deputy Minister’s reply will be judged by history as a flagrant and atrocious untruth.

Do you understand Afrikaans?

How is it possible that the hon the Minister furnished reasonably detailed information in reply to a question from one of his own hon members on 21 February (Hansard: Questions and Replies, 21 February 1989, col 73) and no longer had that information at his disposal on 14 March, three weeks later? Then came the cherry on the top. On Tuesday, 11 April, I asked the hon the Minister the following in an oral question on general affairs:

Unfortunately time ran out for completing those oral questions. I then received the following written reply in my postbox from the hon the Deputy Minister:

What a ridiculous situation! After the hon the Minister or the hon the Deputy Minister had had the question put and provided the House of Assembly with certain information, the hon the Deputy Minister then made an about-turn, shut up like a clam and said the Defence Force had not arranged the visit; he was therefore not in a position to provide information.

What do we now have on the table in this connection? The SA Defence Force put an aircraft at the disposal of a group of members of the Government at the invitation of an unknown party to hold discussions with members of the communist Frelimo government round about the middle of December. The costs were borne by the Mozambicans concerned and the members of the visiting group.

The inevitable question is—I expect a reply— whether the SA Defence Force hires out aircraft to private persons or organisations. If so, at what tariff is this type of transport provided? What is the amount which each member of the visiting group paid?

Who were they?

Place it on the Question Paper; then we shall attend to it.

No, I want to hear it here across the floor of the Chamber. I think the people are entitled to know it. [Interjections.]

The amazing aspect of events surrounding these questions is that no mention would ever have been made of them if the hon the Deputy Minister had not initiated this question on 21 February. What is the situation now? Now this episode is shrouded in suspicion of improper use of Air Force aircraft, secrecy and an attempt to cover up the matter.

The only way in which the hon the Minister can clear this up now is to announce the names of those involved and to tell Parliament exactly what happened round about the middle of December. If he does not do this, he will simply be adding this incident to the long series of recent dubious Government actions. I want to appeal to him seriously to tell the truth instead. He should not permit this visit to be left in a fog of cover-ups. [Interjections.]

In the last few minutes at my disposal I want to raise another matter. It deals with our national servicemen and the blatant disadvantage at which recent graduates are put, in this case, White medical national servicemen who are called up. I want to point out that this affects the House of Assembly only because it is only Whites who have to do compulsory service. I shall quote from a letter which was addressed to me by such a young man:

I am doing this now—

He then lists 50 applications which he had made to obtain work with the State but every time—I do not have time to quote all the letters now— the answer was negative. At the same time, this young man says, other people, even foreigners, are appointed in their stead at hospitals.

What does this have to do with Defence?

Then he told me that he had put his case to two NP members of Parliament but without any success. I have the names here but I shall not disclose them across the floor of the Chamber because the possibility of doing that young doctor an injustice is too great. He writes further:

The hon the Minister asks what this has to do with the Defence Force but I want to appeal to the hon the Minister very seriously. It also affects other departments—it affects the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, and I even have a letter here in which the hon the Minister admits that it is a shortcoming—but it also affects the hon the Minister of Defence because it is his national servicemen who are involved and not only doctors but other professional people too.

If you want to assist him, why do you not come and see me? [Interjections.]

This man went to his NP representatives—I have the two names here— and he could not get any help. That is why he asked me to look into this shortcoming which exists, not only regarding doctors but other people who have problems when private organisations and, as in this case, even Government institutions discover that they are to be called up. They are simply pushed aside. They are merely told: “We cannot accommodate you.” This is a serious shortcoming. It affects national servicemen and I request the hon the Minister to pay attention to this from his side, even if it does not fall under his department.

[Inaudible.]

This man could not bring this to the hon the Minister’s attention in any other way, even through his own members, other than to have it disclosed here. [Interjections.] I feel perfectly free to do so. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members will have the opportunity to react. The hon member for Pietersburg may proceed.

I should therefore like to ask the hon the Minister to pay attention to national servicemen’s problems of this kind and that they be solved because these are unacceptable situations which arise regarding our young men. The people concerned are White voters of the House of Assembly and it is nothing but a form of discrimination which cannot be tolerated any longer. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

Mr Chairman, I am afraid my time is up. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege for me to be able to participate in this debate. My committee allows me certain privileges and I want to thank them for this.

We in the House of Representatives have developed a good way of addressing the hon the Minister of Defence when we have problems. We have learnt that impromptu meetings are a good way of communicating and ironing out problems, particularly if one does not want to drag the Defence Force into politics.

I want to take this opportunity to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon the Minister for the time I could serve on the defence committee. Few people know that the hon the Minister and I met a long time ago at the Military Academy. He had a very stabilising effect on my life in the sense that I could see what a valuable role the Defence Force and the Department of Defence played on the West Coast.

I am also deeply grateful to the Ministry and specifically to Dr Hertz and Mr Frans Durand who assisted us a great deal in respect of liaison with this defence family in general as well as the defence culture.

I also want to convey my sincere appreciation to Gen Geldenhuys and his officers. I want to pause here briefly and say that the Coloured community is deeply grateful for the willingness the Defence Force displayed in the peace initiatives and for the stabilising role they play in Southern Africa.

Our appreciation also goes to Comdt Marais and Mr Van Vuuren for their role, guidance and attitude in connection with the development of Armscor. As a matter of fact I believe that Armscor will continue to be the leading factor in the development of our industries and the protection of our country.

In the initial phase of our politics the Defence Force debate was one in which few people in our party wanted to participate. In the beginning it was a “baptism of fire” for me to be the chairman of the defence committee. Today I can attest to the fact that we developed relations and to a reasonable extent converted the culture surrounding defence in the House of Representatives into another positive opportunity.

There were challenges and I also believe there were times when I wondered whether I should stick my neck out or raise my hand, and whether I should keep quiet or rise to my feet. These are times one has to live through and times when one must consider what is more important, namely to appear in the newspapers or to put the security of the country first. Today I can say that the LP has grown in this time to reach that political responsibility in respect of stability, our men and our security. We will stand by what we believe is unique to us and everyone in South Africa in general.

The Mamre constituency is one of the most beautiful in the country. It is undoubtedly the constituency which gives one the pride to say: If you meddle with us, we will become a fifth republic or secede. We have every possibility in that constituency to create our own separate state because we have the Defence Force, the Department of Defence, the Air Force and Atlantis with its power station. We have everything. We also have lobster, biltong and liquor. If South Africa has problems and they meddle with us, we will make them aware of us.

Do you have any gold?

We do not need it. We have men of steel, which is more important than gold.

In that constituency of mine I want to pay tribute to the contribution made by the creation of a culture and a relationship with the SAS Saldanha, the Military Academy and the Langebaan branch of the Air Force. This is part of our culture on the West Coast and part of the broader family. It is good to have those units in my constituency, and I also want to thank the hon the Minister for the announcement about the rifle-range in Atlantis. I want to ask that the available land be used for the establishment of that unit as soon as possible. I still need a few men from the SA Defence Force in my constituency to share a few drinks and barbecued lobster with.

Military service is a matter which we in the House of Representatives have always handled circumspectly, but today I want to give the hon the Minister the assurance that the day the new South Africa dawns, the day racial discrimination and everything which is negative to us has been removed, the day we can participate in democracy in the country as free people and everyone is included, he will have no difficulty in getting our men to do military service. Until that time it is a challenge to South African politics to move in that direction.

The SA Defence Force has a proud record of leadership and guidance in the general spectrum of South African society. Today it stands as a symbol of unity, determination, pride and patriotism. My visit to the Delville Wood Memorial Garden in France, together with the hon the State President, was a great occasion for me, my wife and the Defence Force family. When one stands in front of that memorial and one looks at those white crosses marking the graves of young South African men, it is a challenge to one to make one’s sacrifice too for this country which belongs to all of us. Then one is tested, and I want to express my thanks for this.

One of the most important aspects of an efficient defence force in a changing society is certainly to be efficient and adaptable, and to be able to assimilate renewal. For that reason I see the SA Defence Force as a symbol of renewal and change in South African society. It is a symbol which must unite our people. They are pioneers for the new South Africa. We must therefore protect and support them, because I believe they create the climate within which politicians can play their part and can move forward to make further changes in South Africa.

I want to return to the role of the Coloured soldier in the Defence Force. Today I want to ask that consideration be given to greater opportunities, greater involvement and permanence for the Coloured soldier. I want to ask that suspicion which gives rise to prejudices against them should be removed, because I believe that on the road to unity in South Africa we must make them realise that they are also there to take their permanent and rightful place, on merit.

I want to suggest to the hon the Minister that efforts should still be made to accommodate Coloured girls too. We would all like to see something done in that direction.

One of my problems with the Coloured soldier in the Defence Force is the fact that he comes from remote towns, in the rural areas. His parents are not in the privileged position of being able to visit him at the camp or over free weekends. I want to ask the hon the Minister if better opportunities cannot be created for the family to visit the young man at the base.

I also want to ask that with the opportunities being created in South African society, which the SA Defence Force enjoys, this climate of change should be used to the good. I believe that the SA Defence Force can play that role to a greater extent. I believe that the SA Defence Force must be the symbol of unity, and for that reason I know that the hon the Minister will give attention to certain aspects which we discussed at impromptu meetings.

I also believe that the SA Defence Force must assist the Black community to become involved in the greater South Africa. For that reason I am also appealing for the SA Defence Force— provided the Black community wants this—to play that positive role in their preparation for participation in the new South Africa.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow on the hon the Deputy Minister because of the positive speech which he made. Unfortunately I cannot say the same about the hon member for Pietersburg. I shall return to him in the course of my speech and say a few things.

Today I should like to confine myself to the role of Swapo in the current political structure and the image of Swapo with specific reference to their atrocities of which we should all take note—including the entire world. The history up to Resolution 435 is known to each of us and therefore I shall not go into it any further.

†Throughout all these years of negotiations South Africa remained committed to the maintenance of peace and stability in the territory. Swapo, on the other hand, continued with its acts of terrorism against the civilian population, which include assassination attacks on its political opponents, such as the one witnessed by the murder of Chief Kapuo. This forced South Africa to undertake pre-emptive strikes into Angolan territory, where Swapo had its bases under the protection of Fapla and Cuban forces.

On 1 April 1989 the peace plan for South West Africa/Namibia came into effect. On that very day Swapo terrorists crossed into South West Africa/Namibia to try to establish military bases in the territory with a view to intimidating the population of Ovamboland into voting for them. At least 50% of the total population reside in Ovamboland.

*An article in Finansies en Tegniek of 14 April carries a headline: “Swapo-inval verbeter SA se beeld.” The article reads:

Emphasis was placed on the agreement which South Africa had to honour.

South Africa’s image has never been as good in the world as at this moment, whereas Swapo’s has reached a low point. As regards Swapo, the world knows that it will now no longer be easy to build up the Swapo image so we may expect every effort to be expended specifically to erode the image of the RSA.

I have an advertisement here which appeared in the Cape Times of a public meeting which was to take place yesterday. The headline reads: “What is happening in Namibia?” It also states: “Organised by Namibia Information Group (Cape Democrats)”. Apparently they are a type of splinter group of the ECC and Idasa, that is to say a leftist radical group. Who is one of the speakers? There is Mr Laurie Nathan among others, a former national president of the ECC. [Interjections.] We can expect it of them, as well as from other media quarters, to denigrate our security forces, suggesting that they commit atrocities and kill innocent people.

They will easily ask why it is the case that so few Swapo soldiers have given themselves up or been taken captive. We can also expect them to make allegations that we carry out summary executions after we have taken them prisoner. This is the type of propaganda for which we must be prepared and can expect. I ask the DP whether they will reject the standpoints put forward in this type of propaganda and by these types of organisations. As we know them, this will not happen.

This brings me to the hon member for Pieters-burg. I think the speech which was made here this morning was not prepared thoroughly. It contained reaction to hon members of the NP. That party uses the Defence Force to its own advantage as a political party. This was pointed out by the hon the Minister too. I appeal to the CP not to drag the Defence Force into politics. But when its members discuss this pettiness, I ask them to tell us why they belittled the action of the SADF and Swapol in South West Africa. [Interjections.]

Let us look at the facts of Swapo atrocities of which we are aware. Surely we know that Swapo do not leave the wounded behind; they are murdered so that information cannot be passed on. They are simply shot because some of those terrorists are not terrorists at heart. Some were kidnapped on the pretext that they would receive professional training as medical practitioners, etc; on the contrary, they were trained as terrorists. That is why they cannot simply be left behind.

Now that Swapo’s true image is coming to the fore its members have to try to distract attention from their own misdeeds and bloodshed. Recently Swapo has experienced failure year after year. It has suffered military defeat, it has been unable to succeed politically and diplomatically, it is committing so many blunders that even its staunchest supporters are embarrassed. This is the organisation which was the favourite of UNO, Western countries and certain of the media. Now they are discovering that this orphan which they cherished to such an extent and tried to raise is turning round and stabbing them in the back. This is Swapo’s nature in any case. Its revolutionary nature is a viper which they have cherished in their bosom. Now it is destroying them from within. The visible way in which its members do this by means of bloodshed and violence is in stark contrast to what they purport as an organisation, that they are fighting for freedom. Swapo is also an organisation which treats its own members in a cruel and bloody manner from within.

There are scores of concentration camps and this has been documented by The International Society for Human Rights. The barbarous treatment which these people receive in camps and the horrendous manner in which some of their followers are executed without trial are clearly reflected in the source mentioned. Let us look at what The International Society for Human Rights has to say about “Sam Nujoma and Swapo’s atrocities”:

†There are so many cases. I would just like to mention the one of Mr Shafooli, a critic of Swapo who was shot to death on 14 May 1988 by two assassins near the Makeni transit camp for refugees near Lusaka in Zambia. I quote:

There is a list of people believed to have been killed who have disappeared from Swapo camps in Angola or Zambia.

*What prospects do people in South West Africa/Namibia have if they do not defeat Swapo effectively at the ballot box now? This is an organisation which has a history of being a flagrant violator of human rights. Surely that is not the type of strategy which we can approve. These are the matters which have to be revealed. They should be made known to the world. It would also help to bring greater realism to international politics—something which would be to South Africa’s advantage.

Mr Chairman, I have very little time and therefore I shall not follow or comment on the speech of the hon member for Algoa.

The hon the Minister made an interesting speech yesterday, especially in the first part, where he referred to the positioning of the South African Defence Force and Armscor. He tried to do this against the background of security considerations. Interesting statements were made, such as the Defence Force point of view that Western and Eastern Europe were moving closer to each other. He went on to say, and I quote from his unrevised Hansard:

I quote further:

The hon the Minister went on to say that the South African Defence Force was not optimistic or pessimistic about the new developments, but that it is basically a realpolitik approach—a realistic approach—which they are pursuing in reaction to the developments which he outlined.

These statements are interesting and welcome, especially when viewed against the background of the stand taken by the Defence Force, even as recently as three years ago. I am referring to paragraph 55 of the White Paper on Defence and Armaments Supply which was tabled in 1986. It deals with the external threat as well as the stand of the Defence Force with regard to external threats at the time.

†Paragraph 55 reads as follows:

Then the White Paper proceeds to explain how in its onslaught against South Africa the USSR makes use of agencies etc.

That was the positioning in 1986 and the positioning which the hon the Minister took yesterday represents a significant shift and I believe a shift towards greater realism. What one must appreciate though is that the shift in positioning places a large question mark over the continued total onslaught rhetoric—at least the foreign element of that.

I ask myself how the security establishment will now define its previously held concept of total onslaught because, as it stood, the total onslaught was totally lead by the Soviet Union through all its agencies. If that leg is now removed, then quite clearly the focus falls onto the internal situation.

The internal political assessment by the SA Defence Force, in my view, also needs to be more realistic. Not so many years ago senior SADF officers repeatedly said the solution to South Africa’s problems lay 80% in the political field and 20% in the military field. We have not heard that point of view expressed for the past three, four or five years. We have not heard it at all because the security establishment has gained more prominence in our day to day lives and in the administration of the country. [Interjections.]

I do not understand why there is a reaction against the term “securocrats”. Of course, Sir, there are securocrats in South Africa, and of course the securocrats have gained in importance. When one reaches the stage in which the NP caucus is informed of the consequences after military actions that have taken place rather than that caucus being involved in the decision making, then it does mean the security establishment has gained in importance and has ascended inside this country … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Central tried to become rather technical here. Therefore I am not going to try to react to him. I am sure that the hon the Minister will give him a completely satisfactory answer in his reply.

For lack of time I want to start discussing a very important subject immediately. It deals with productivity in the SA Defence Force.

This year the Defence Budget amounts to a total of more than R9, 937 billion, which representsan increase of 21,3%, in real terms, as compared with the Budget for 1988-89. Expressed as a percentage of State expenditure, it represents 15,6% of the total Budget and 4,4% of the estimated gross domestic product.

Although these figures may sound astronomical at first, it can be mentioned that in 1987 the defence budgets of countries such as the United Kingdom, the USA and Israel, expressed as a percentage of their gross domestic product, were already larger than that of the Republic of South Africa.

The chief and primary task of the SA Defence Force is to guarantee the safety of the inhabitants of this country at all times, as well as to see to it that the territorial integrity of our borders is preserved. With this objective in mind the SA Defence Force must utilise all the means at its disposal at all times. It is for the aforementioned purposes that the Defence Budget is chiefly used.

Like any ordinary business organisation, the SA Defence Force realises that in order to be successful, it must apply its assets and means in such a way as to be not only effective, but also productive, in order to ensure that the SA Defence Force will remain prepared and basically sound.

Productivity and effective application is and has always been of utmost importance to the SA Defence Force, and today I wish to express a few basic ideas in this respect. In 1987 the SA Defence Force initiated a countrywide programme specifically for the improvement of productivity. The aim was to improve productivity continuously within the overall organisation of the SA Defence Force.

After the launching of this programme notable successes have already been achieved. I wish to mention them. Firstly a greater awareness of productivity has been fostered among all members of the SA Defence Force over the length and breadth of our country. Secondly 3 482 Defence Force members have already been trained in productivity techniques and the interest in this activity has increased to such an extent that training programmes have had to be expanded.

Thirdly, already more than 250 individual productivity projects have been initiated within the SA Defence Force. Fourthly, the improved work procedures and methods that have been applied in the SA Defence Force since then, resulted in an estimated saving of R30 million last year.

This contribution to productivity by the SA Defence Force was not only an individual achievement but last year it was one of the top achievers in the field of productivity in this country and obtained the Gold Class award which was presented in the competition organised by the National Productivity Institute. [Interjections.]

This participation in Defence Force context resulted in the personal involvement and interest of every officer commanding of every unit. They contributed towards the fivefold increase in the number of entries for the productivity programme. The assignments and achievements were of such high quality that the Commission for Administration gave its approval to 12 members of the Defence Force being rewarded, since they used their own initiative to put forward suggestions to promote productivity.

What is the most important is that the financial saving for the State, which resulted from the suggestions of these Defence Force members, amounted to an estimated R3,5 million.

Apart from the large number of Defence Force members who have already been trained in the concept of productivity improvement, approximately 1 227 productivity courses have been offered.

Today I wish to make the statement that this positive spirit, this new appreciation of productivity, cost-saving and effective application is going to become a way of life within the SA Defence Force.

If I say it today, it is also important and right that one pays tribute to some of the creators and the fathers of this idea of saving and effectiveness in the SA Defence Force.

This idea did not take root recently. It is the result of years of planning and involvement. As early as 1976 the hon the Minister of Defence, in his previous capacity as Head of the SADF, together with the previous Minister of Defence, now our hon State President, started to propagate the idea of economising in the SADF very strongly.

Their ideas and visions led to the establishing of a new unit, known as the SA Army Loss Control Unit. It was established in cooperation with members of the private sector with the exclusive purpose of making saving and effectiveness, which are important components of productivity, a daily household word in the SADF.

It was my special honour and privilege to have been one of the first founder members of this unit, and later to have been able to act as commander of one of the teams.

I want to make the statement that the successes that have been achieved, were extremely positive. The expansion of the productivity idea is a wonderful development of this concept, which had already been created.

Defence Force property and equipment belongs to every taxpayer in this country. Defence Force time is also a very valuable possession. If we do not utilise the time and the equipment of the SA Defence Force optimally and productively at all times, we harm no-one but ourselves, our country and our safety.

That is why the Defence Force is so positively disposed towards productivity. This attitude must become a way of life of every member of the Defence Force and every serviceman. We, as parents, have an obligation to ask our children to look after Defence Force property as their own.

South Africa cannot continue to exist if it is not prepared and ready for the enemy outside at all times. In 1977 I had the privilege of standing on the border of Lebanon and Syria with a former Israeli soldier. He told me something that I shall never forget. He said: “Young man, do you realise that if our enemies lose a war, they lose a few miles of desert but if we lose only one war, we lose our existence?”. South Africa cannot afford to lose that one war either. We must be prepared and ready at all times to withstand the onslaught.

Mr Chairman, in support of Vote 9 I wish to congratulate the hon the Minister of Defence on the way in which they have been conducting the affairs of the Government, with special emphasis on the South West Africa/Namibia affair.

*I want to confine my speech to the social activities of the Defence Force. I feel that we should not only discuss the Defence Force in the context in which so many other hon members have done, but that we should also discuss the role which the Defence Force plays with regard to its social services.

When one goes to Crossroads—I do not see our friend the hon member for Claremont, because I want to say this to him as well—one sees the tents that have been pitched there. In 1986 there were 550 tents in Crossroads and in 1987 there were 1 600 tents. Had it not been for the fact that the Defence Force was involved in Crossroads for three or four winters, those people would certainly have died of cold. I want to thank the Defence Force, because in many respects this changed the perception and the image of the Defence Force in that area. I also want to say to them that there is a nasty piece of concrete lying there which they should try to have removed.

I really feel sorry for the Defence Force, because it was the then PFP which created this image of the Defence Force in the townships. I still remember the time when the Defence Force was involved there, because the PFP went in there and collected people’s names and addresses. They tried to gather evidence against the work of the Defence Force, while the Defence Force was trying to bring peace to the area. I clearly remember saying to one of their hon members: “If you are now going to gather evidence in our constituency, then I am going to gather together all the servants in Sea Point and Green Point. I am going to put them on the platform and then they can tell us what wonderful progressive masters they have.” That is where the whole thing ended. The person who is best able to describe what goes on in one’s home is one’s maid.

Furthermore I want to highlight the social role which the Defence Force has played with regard to Black residential areas.

†Some of us are in the position where we could buy ourselves out of apartheid. Some of us are in the position where we could buy ourselves out of our poverty but we must remember that we still have a tremendous number of poverty-stricken areas. When it comes to things like this, we are grateful for what the SADF is doing. I want to tell hon members that I have gone in there. I drive through these Black areas daily.

*There are numerous things one can mention with regard to areas where the Defence Force is involved and things they do in these areas, such as the bulldozers which were brought in to level the ground, their involvement with the women’s clubs, education etc.

†I do not hesitate to salute the SADF.

*I only ask that they carry on with the social work which they are doing there. It is very much to our advantage, especially with regard to the perception which the leftwing is trying to build up against the Defence Force.

†There is a very important issue that keeps coming up that it is in regard to conscription. As far as conscription is concerned, it is no issue with us. Let me refer hon members to a paper that was prepared by one of our members, namely The political history of the Coloured people since the turn of the century. I quote:

There are many volunteers. At Faure hundreds of volunteers have to be turned away because all of them cannot be accommodated. I want to continue with the quote:

*My people also left their mark during the Boer War. I do not want the history to state, according to the viewpoint of the CP, that it was only the Whites and the Afrikaners.

†It is time that those hon members stopped denying the right that we have in history because the history of which those hon members speak, is also written in the blood of my people.

*As with the blood of the Afrikaner, there is also Coloured blood in every one of us in this country. Let us therefore get away from that point of view. My people’s blood was also shed at Blood River and during the Boer War.

What does Koos say?

Koos is improving. Leave him alone.

Koos says it is true!

Thank you, Koos.

I want to go further and thank the hon the Minister personally for the role the Defence Force has played in my area. I could bring them in there to assist with a sportsfield. I want to pose the following question to the hon the Minister. Early in 1986-87 we were dealing with our mini-joint management centres. I just want to say that despite criticism against these JMCs they did a great job. I feel that somewhere along the way things did not run smoothly. The mini-JMCs succeeded in involving everyone on different levels. Unfortunately certain people tried to politicise the situation, but they were not aware of the problem that existed. I want to ask the hon the Minister to reintroduce the JMCs just as they were with everyone involved, from the headmaster to the postmaster. I ask that the mini-JMCs should again take their rightful place in the community. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a special privilege for me to speak after the hon member for Bishop Lavis. Towards the end of his speech he referred to the CP, and that is where I wish to begin.

In his speech yesterday the hon the Minister of Defence referred to the objectionable methods which the CP were using to disparage the political head of the Defence Force and to place him under suspicion. One incident to which the hon the Minister referred, and upon which I should like to expand, was the speech made by the hon member for Brakpan on 6 March in the House of Assembly.

In the course of a private member’s motion moved by the CP, the hon member for Brakpan made the following statement. I quote him from Hansard, 6 March 1989, col 2157:

I wish to draw hon members’ attention to the interesting use of the word “scenarios”. The hon member made the following statement:

He then referred to a certain incident.

According to Basiese Konsepte in die Politiek by H J Kotzé and J J van Wyk, a scenario is a description of a sequence of events which could possibly take place in the future. I do not think the hon member referred to something else which would happen in the future. I do not know whether the hon member for Overvaal would like to say that this is, in fact, the case.

I simply laugh at you.

He will laugh at himself now.

The hon member for Brakpan referred to an historical incident that had already taken place— to be precise, 10 years ago—but once again this is merely a confirmation of the dream world in which the CP are living. When they talk about the future, they really mean the past. [Interjections.]

There may be another reason why the hon member used this word. In my opinion the hon member used it because the CP wishes to sow doubt in a well-planned manner by way of disinformation.

The use of disinformation by the CP to disparage the enemy and thereby to attempt to weaken and destroy them, is not a new invention. The Chinese strategist Sun Chou wrote as long ago as the 4th century that the basis of all successful warfare as deception and that he made certain his enemy saw his strength as weakness and his weakness as strength.

In the 16th century Machiavelli took this approach even further. According to him any power can impose its will in only two ways, namely by force or by deceit. Because the use of violence necessarily entailed certain risks, Machiavelli’s advice was “never to attempt to achieve through violence what can be obtained by deceit”.

Machiavelli and Sun Chou advocated deceit and deception as a war strategy. Lenin, however, declared that the lie was his strongest political weapon. He realised that not only could the gullibility of people be exploited, but also that most people were relatively ignorant insofar as politics was concerned.

Furthermore, Lenin was also the first modern political leader to draw a distinction between propaganda and disinformation. The Nazis developed these techniques further. Like Lenin, Josef Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda chief, believed in the effectiveness of the lie as a political weapon:

The lie is repeated so often in conjunction with other half truths and distorted facts that to many gullible and inept people it becomes the truth. They therefore believe the lie.

Today I am making the statement that the propaganda methods which the CP are employing, may be compared with the basic philosophy of disinformation, as developed over the centuries by people like Sun Chou, Machiavelli, Lenin and Goebbels.

I make this statement because what are the facts regarding the so-called swimming pool issue to which the hon member for Brakpan referred?

What was the result in Newcastle?

The hon member must wait for the next result. [Interjections.]

One of the cornerstones of democracy is public accountability with regard to the expenditure of public funds. Government auditing forms the basis of the maintenance of this important cornerstone, and for this reason confirmation of this is also to be found in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

The Auditor-General and his office form a central link in the public representation process, through which the administration accounts to Parliament. In brief, it is the Auditor-General’s task to determine whether there are any irregularities in the financial affairs of the Government sector and to report to Parliament. After the reports of the Auditor-General have been tabled, Parliament refers the documents to the Joint Committee on Public Accounts for investigation and a report back to Parliament.

In the case of the so-called swimming pool episode, it is important to take cognisance of the fact that this matter took the normal democratic course from the Auditor-General to the committee to the House of Assembly, but the hon member for Brakpan kept silent about these facts for good reasons.

In order to confirm my statement with regard to the propaganda methods of disinformation employed by the CP and in order to test the worth of the hon member’s allegation, I believe the following facts are also important. Firstly, I refer to the Auditor-General’s report for the 1978-79 financial year, which showed an unauthorised expenditure in the amount of R24 303,87 which had been spent on improvements, alterations and security measures in respect of the official residence of the Chief of the SA Defence Force. Hon members must take cognisance of the fact that the Auditor-General’s report referred to the official residence of the Chief of the SA Defence Force and not, as the hon member for Brakpan alleges, to that of the hon the Minister of Defence.

Let us look at the reason why this expenditure was reported as unauthorised by the Auditor-General. This was done because the amount had been debited to the relevant Defence Vote, without the approval of the Treasury.

In the evidence that was led before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, the then Auditor-General, Mr Schickerling, reported as follows:

Then the Auditor-General made this very important statement:

The third point I wish to highlight, is the fact that of the expenditure of R24 303,87, the amount of R19 621,73 was used for security measures and the balance for miscellaneous repair work and alterations. In further evidence before the Select Committee on Public Accounts the Auditor-General gave the following evidence with reference to a question by the hon member for Yeoville as to whether the swimming pool was on the list:

Therefore, there was no expenditure in respect of a swimming pool in this instance. [Interjections.]

All these facts, and even the fact that the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts was accepted by the House of Assembly on 27 May 1980, were known to this hon member. In fact, he could have clarified this with the hon member for Barberton, who at that stage was already a member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. However, the hon member found it expedient to use these untrue stories in a well-planned and objectionable manner for the propaganda purposes of the CP. That is unacceptable.

I want to tell this hon member and the CP, in the words of Langenhoven:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member said that the hon member for Brakpan had resorted to a lie. He is therefore saying that the hon member for Brakpan told an untruth in this House and consequently that he lied. He is not entitled to do so, and I ask you to rule that the hon member withdraw it.

Order! Did the hon member use those words?

I did not say that. I could repeat what I said if you were to ask me to do so.

Mr Chairman, the hon member said that the hon member for Brakpan had resorted to a lie. That is absolutely the same thing.

Order! I merely wish to know whether the hon member did in fact say it. If so, the hon member must withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I did not say it. I quoted Langenhoven, and that is what the hon member is referring to.

Order! I take the hon member’s word for it that he did not say it. Will the hon member kindly resume his seat.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: One may not quote the words of someone else here in order to hide behind them and to evade the parliamentary rules. I cannot quote Langenhoven. Sun Chou or Machiavelli in an attempt to tell another hon member that he has lied. That hon member may not do so since it is in conflict with the rules.

Order! I merely wish to repeat that the hon member has in fact asserted that he was quoting, and I take his word for it.

Mr Chairman, before I get on to the Budget Vote, I just want to relate an incident.

In May last year a White person who was well-known to me in Umzinto and who had been transferred to Pongola in Zululand, came to see me to find out if I could help a young White person who was doing his compulsory army training in Potchefstroom. He told me that he was from a poor family and whenever he got a free pass he spent his month’s allowance to get to Pongola and back to Potchefstroom. I wrote to the hon the Minister on behalf of this young man and I was successful. I want to place on record my thanks and appreciation to the hon the Minister and his staff for assisting me in this instance. I want to read some extracts from the thank you card which I received. I hope the hon CP members will listen to me. He says:

Yesterday the hon the Minister made some announcements which I welcomed but, unfortunately, I do not have time to elaborate on them.

It is an honour to participate again in this important debate. It is important because this debate is supposed to centre around the security of our country and the security of our people. It is a fact that no country can develop or progress if a climate of security does not exist. The situation in Beirut is a good example; lawlessness, fighting and the killing of people is the order of the day. It is unimaginable to talk about the prospering of that country. This disorder is a direct consequence of the fact that Lebanon scaled down its security forces some years ago. The result is the present security chaos that is clear to all who watch television and read the papers.

I would like to stay on the positive side. Our country can today justifiably be classified as the most stable country in Africa. We certainly have our problems but the internal situation in South Africa could be much worse. Our security forces deserve our thanks and appreciation for their dedication in maintaining a situation of stability. The influx of refugees from our neighbouring countries is proof that those countries cannot provide basic needs, let alone guarantee the protection of human life. Apart from that, I have never heard of someone who has fled from utopia to hell.

There is development in our country, although slower than we would like it to be. The climate is such that every individual who is serious about our future will admit that a climate of goodwill and hope exists here. We must use this opportunity to carry on with reform. I have said on previous occasions that only South Africans will be able to work out our future destiny. The outside world and even the super powers have no ready-made formula for us. The security forces create this climate and I would like to thank the hon the Minister for the dedication of the SADF in maintaining this climate and for the able support of our police.

The SADF does not hesitate to assist any community whenever their help is requested. We think about the relief given by the SADF such as the saving of lives during floods. Have I to remind members in the House of Delegates about the Inanda riots? These actions properly demonstrate the SADF’s humanitarian way of operating. The community at large must take cognisance of this humanitarian role of the SADF and accept the SADF as the protector of peace.

I extend my thanks and appreciation to the hon the Minister and the Chief of the Defence Force for the career opportunities given to members of the Indian community. [Time expired]

Mr Chairman, may I add my congratulations and thanks to those expressed towards the SADF by previous speakers. I would also like to express a personal and sincere word of appreciation to the Ministerial staff in particular for the fantastic assistance which we in the Official Opposition receive from them with regard to problems which we submit on behalf of our voters. In particular I would like to single out Brig Gert Opperman for a special mention. We wish him every success on his promotion in the Northern Transvaal. We know that he will enjoy that part of the world. I would also like to extend a warm word of welcome to Brig Van Graan and state that we look forward to a mutually beneficial association.

We who serve and have served in the SADF forge a special bond with one another—a bond forged in the defence of our country which should be stronger than party political tensions. The hon the Minister, with his involvement in effecting my promotion to the substantive rank of commandant, has confirmed the existence of this bond. I thank him publicly most sincerely for what he has done. In the process I believe he has repudiated colleagues who should have known better.

There are some who serve for their own glory, but the majority of people who serve in the SADF serve to serve South Africa, the Defence Force, their regiments and units first and their own interests second. Many of them use their holiday periods to attend continuous training, even to this day in a sympathetic community, as a result of objections by employers with regard to the granting of special leave for volunteers in the Citizen Force and the Commandos.

Even today we still have people doing their national service training who are experiencing serious difficulties and I think that the law needs to be looked at with a view to these people. My experience is that most of the people involved are foreigners who are creaming it off in this country and contribute nothing towards the mutual well-being of everyone. I think that the matter deserves action. These are the people who have benefited and in the future will benefit from the hon the Minister’s decision, and on behalf of those many people who were in a similar situation to mine, I would like to thank him.

The hon member for Algoa spoke at length on Swapo and the threat posed by them. I am convinced, however, that our security forces can more than cope with Swapo and, if needs be, the Cubans, What really concerns me is a recent report which appeared in The Star of 24 February under the headline: “Inadequate monitoring worries South Africa.” This report states further that inadequate monitoring of the Cuban withdrawal is considered by South Africa as one of the graver threats to the implementation of Resolution 435. It states further that even the USA is unhappy. I quote: “… So unhappy that the USA is sending their own monitors to monitor the monitoring force.” I would like to appeal to the hon the Minister that, in the process of renegotiation which is obviously going to take place as a result of the breach of Resolution 435 by Swapo, he insist that elements of the SADF form part of that monitoring force so that we too can monitor the UN monitoring Swapo.

I would like to refer briefly to the attempts by the hon the Minister to drive a wedge between the people of the SADF and the CP. He must rather take his own example and keep petty politics out of the Defence Force. He must not try to turn our criticism of his political leadership of the department into criticism of the SADF as such. He knows that we in the Official Opposition hold the SADF in the highest possible regard. The voluntary involvement of hon members on our side of the House bears testimony to this fact.

The hon member for Middelburg quite rightly boasted of the number of senior SADF officers who passed through Middelburg in the course of their careers. I would like to use this opportunity to boast about the regiment which I had the privilege to command for six years. The Witwa-tersrand Rifles produced four post-war generals for our army. They are Generals Jacobs, Van der Riet, Bill Barends and SAP General Doempie Cloete, as well as a number of brigadiers. The record of the regiment is there for all to see. I think that I can proudly offer this regiment as one of the finest regiments in South Africa and I was proud to have served them.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow on the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, and I must say that the hon member was a bit more positive for a change. I think they are a bit sensitive and were definitely hurt by the hon the Minister’s speech yesterday in the House of Assembly.

I want to make the statement today—and I do not know whether anyone will want to refute it—that our Defence Force is one of the best in the world, not only as regards fitness and training, but also stability and perseverance. Our boys in the Defence Force are proudly protecting this beautiful country of ours, and their morale is high. The training they receive builds character and prepares them for serving their country.

I want to make another statement, namely that our women in this country are the best to be found anywhere. [Interjections.] Today I want to give credit where credit is due, and that is to those thousands of wives and mothers of our servicemen, who play their role with such distinction in our community.

†There are those unsung heroines who are very much in the background and who seek no honour or recognition. Without them the army would not be the force it is today. Washington Irving, an American writer, said, and I quote:

*The acceptance and implementation of Resolution 435 created a feeling of excitement amongst most of our people, especially amongst the women in our country, at the fact that at last there is peace and that the bush war is over, but as the hon the Minister said yesterday:

Swapo have already proved that they are not prepared to stand back. How far can one still trust them? Rear Admiral Bennet said, at the prize-giving ceremony at the Saldanha Marine Base on Wednesday:

Our northern borders still have to be guarded. They are extensive and there are communist states all round.

The history of our country has taught us that the women of South Africa are solid citizens who possess drive and perseverance. We only have to think of the contribution they have made to our country over the years. Where would our country have been today if, at the time of the Great Trek, the women had refused to trek into the hinterland with their husbands, if they had decided to choose comfort and convenience rather than insecurity and deprivation in the search for freedom? They were the strength and driving force behind our Trek leaders.

For the past 20 years since South Africa became involved in the bush war, the mothers have supported and encouraged their sons. They stood firm and laid the foundation stones for our men’s preparedness. Many had to bear, in silence, the sorrow of having lost a son or husband who had made the ultimate sacrifice, but in the knowledge that it had not been in vain. Behind the scenes the wives of our servicemen have had to help and support their husbands at all times. It is not always easy to run the home when one’s husband is far away and facing danger. We met some of these women on the border, women who are there at their husbands’ sides. I am proud to say that such women belong to our country, South Africa. Today I wish to thank these women from the bottom of my heart, because a nation with women such as these will prosper, and with the grace of our Heavenly Father we shall build the country into a real home for all our people.

A soldier’s morale largely depends on the support he gets at home. Those letters and parcels that have been packed and wrapped with so much dedication are filled with love and encouragement. Are we normally aware of the mental state of those wonderful young men who risk their lives for their country? Today I also wish to thank those women’s organisations who have, over the years, been sending parcels with letters of encouragement.

For years it has also been my privilege to belong to one of those organisations, the Women’s Agricultural Association, which is one of the largest of such organisations in our country. They have contributed more than their fair share.

I also find it sad to think that there are so many of us, mothers and fathers, who support and encourage their children to take part in the End Conscription Campaign. From what negative homes do such people come, people who are too afraid to stand up and fight for this country? What are they going to say when their children ask them one day: “Dad, what did you do in the war, what did you do when South Africa was burning?” There are people who, as the Americans say, strive for peace at all costs and who, from a position of weakness, negotiate with the enemy. Let me tell hon members of the DP, who love talking to the ANC that the ANC is laughing at them. They call them “useful idiots” who do their enemies work for them so well that they can achieve a victory without a war.

Reference has already been made today to the letter written by a CP mother which appeared in Die Burger this morning. She said:

She went on to say:

That was a planted letter!

For that reason I want to associate myself with the hon the Minister who yesterday launched such a scathing attack on the conduct of those hon members on that side of the House.

Today I should also like to pay tribute to a very special lady, the Dankie Tannie, Mrs Elizabeth Albrecht, who established the Southern Cross Fund 20 years ago and has kept it going. In this way thousands of rands were raised to provide amenities for our boys on the border. The hon the State President honoured her by awarding her the Star of South Africa, but I think it would also be fitting for us in Parliament to commend her and thank her today for her selfless service to this beautiful country of ours.

Women today have 52% of the vote, and that is a powerful weapon in their hands. Their involvement will determine the course to be adopted in this country of ours. The women in our country should take note of the other parties and their objectives so that we realise that there is only one party in this country which is going to ensure our future. For that reason our women must continue to maintain their stability and high moral values, and they will all be able to set the tone as the centrepoints of the community and of their families.

Even though there is a feeling of cautious optimism now that the war in Angola and South West Africa seems to be something of the past, we have not yet reached the end. Our boys will still be called up for military training, because that is where our country’s strength lies. That is where the strength and preparedness of the Defence Force lie. We women will be there, whenever necessary, proud to make our contribution. To these wives and mothers in our country we say: Keep it up; we are proud of you. May you be given strength from Above to continue serving our country and our people in this way.

Mr Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. Today I should like to outline the role played by the Defence Force in the community. The Defence Force plays a significant role in awareness and in serving the community.

Citizen force members realise that as soldiers they have a duty to their community. They help with the upliftment of their community. The SA Defence Force realises that its function is not only the training and making available of prepared soldiers.

The Defence Force is aware that there is insufficient sporting equipment in the depressed communities. For that reason it is channelling donations and sporting equipment to youth clubs that need it, through private organisations. The role which the Defence Force plays as a provider of employment cannot be overemphasised. In the auxiliary services of the Defence Force, large numbers of Coloured people are accommodated. We think of the respective auxiliary services, under which the services of drivers, clerks and labourers fall. These people have job satisfaction and are making their contribution in their respective fields to the defence of our country and its people. In turn they are assisted with medical facilities, housing and pensions.

They perform important duties for the Defence Force, but are compensated in a tangible way for their services. They are also afforded an opportunity to look after themselves as regards their security, and they are to a large extent enabled, to protect themselves. Coloured soldiers in the area of responsibility of the commandos are incorporated in the commandos and in this way are responsible for protecting the community too.

As a result the actions and behaviour of the Defence Force are very valuable from a security perspective. Because the community is involved in guidance regarding the threat against the Republic of South Africa, they become security conscious. The community makes contributions by reporting suspicious persons, movements and objects. This training in preparedness specifically gives the rural communities the ability to protect themselves.

The peacefulness in Coloured communities, with specific reference to the revolutionary climate, is strikingly illustrated by the absence of Coloured platoons in Coloured residential areas, because they are not needed there. In the municipal elections in October 1988. they were used to safeguard polling stations after hours.

In the Defence Force the religious preparedness of people is also taken care of. Religion plays a decisive role in every community, and for that reason there is a Chaplain Service in the Defence Force, which gives every denomination the opportunity to serve its own members. During training ministers of different denominations are present. They achieve meetings and contacts between themselves and the soldiers. During visits to barracks the soldiers get to know their chaplains better, and enlightening discussions take place.

It is important to our parents that their children should have a good religious life. Our parents take grateful cognisance of the fact that guidance is given by chaplains with regard to marriage guidance, drug addiction and so on. The religious preparation which soldiers receive in the Defence Force, also emerges clearly in their community life. Troops consider the presence of chaplains to be of inestimable value. Those soldiers who are on the border, cannot stop talking about the fact that chaplains accompany them on operations.

I also want to talk about the involvement of Blacks in the commandos. During visits to the operational area one could see the importance of involving the local population in defence. At Omega base in the Caprivi the Bushman battalion is trained only as soldiers, but their women are also trained in housekeeping and handicrafts. The Ovambo battalions have already given displays of their precision marching and accompanying rhythmic folk songs and singing at the Green Point Stadium.

The Defence Force’s policy is to involve Coloured, Indian and Black members in the commandos, in particular. These members pull their weight and feel the need to play their part to defend our country. The Army incorporates these people in the commandos with the same conditions of service as those of the Whites. They receive uniforms and corps badges. During their training they receive special training as a home guard, trackers, interpreters, gatherers of information, protectors of key positions, drivers, chefs, clerks and storemen and training with a view to protecting farms.

They are used in emergencies, such as floods and when lives are threatened. During droughts they must supply the inhabitants with water and food. Sometimes water for domestic use is transported in tankers. Helicopters are used to rescue trapped persons and transport them to temporary accommodation during floods. We therefore see that the Defence Force renders a particularly important service to the community.

Mr Chairman, it is always a singular privilege and honour to react to what was said by the hon member for Grassy Park. I agree whole-heartedly with what he said here this afternoon.

One aspect one should not lose sight of is that the hon member knows what he is talking about. He also served in the Second World War as a member of the SA Defence Force. I thank him very sincerely for the exceptionally positive contribution he made here today. He gave us an insight into certain aspects from his and his party’s point of view.

Please permit me, shortly before lunch, to extend my thanks to a few individuals. I want to begin by expressing my thanks and appreciation to the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence. He is a competent, dedicated and hard-working Deputy. I depend on him to a great extent, on his insight and his advice. He is a pillar of strength to me in the Ministry of Defence. He is someone who does not mind what time of the day or night it is if there is work to be done for the SA Defence Force and Armscor.

Let me mention just one example of his hard work and dedication. In December 1988, whilst so many of us were taking our vacations, he and Mrs Breytenbach went to visit our soldiers in their bases. He virtually covered the area from South West Africa/Namibia to Cape Town, Natal, the Free State and the Far North. My special thanks also go to his wife, Mrs Breytenbach, for having accompanied him. [Interjections.] It means a tremendous amount to the men serving there, with their families, to see that the Ministers’ wives also come along to express their thanks.

He went to deliver the message that we care for our men in uniform. He went to show them that we care, and that is why the men also care for him. I want to give him that assurance.

My thanks, too, for his words yesterday about the military veterans just before the House adjourned and for what he said today about the financial management of the SA Defence Force. I hope the hon member for Durban Central was listening to what the hon the Deputy Minister said about the finance. It was either the hon member for Durban Central or the hon member for Berea who enquired about the future expenditure of funds. I think the hon the Deputy Minister replied to that hon member accordingly.

I should like to extend a special word of thanks to my party’s study-group under the guidance of the hon member Dr Geldenhuys. [Interjections.] This hon member is a purposeful administrator with deep insight and loyal dedication to the Defence family. I thank him for his instructive contribution yesterday.

In the hon member for False Bay we have a loyal and motivated deputy chairman. He is always at his post and always willing to work. Yesterday he did a very detailed job, politically speaking, of unmasking shooting syndrome of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly and the DP’s dilemmas. I also want to express my thanks to him for his work as a Whip in this debate.

In the secretarial team we have the hon member for Langlaagte, who was at his best yesterday. That is how we have come to know him when it comes to defence matters. I want to assure hon members that his organisational work is always excellent. Few people know—I am sure the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly does not know this—that the hon member served in the Defence Force for a long time and consequently knows what he is talking about. In die SA Defence Force he also made an enormous contribution to boxing. Hence his singular ability to floor the CP. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Durbanville also spoke with great authority about Armscor. He neatly pointed out that the SA Defence Force was the champion of peace. He also serves the administration with steadfastness, and I thank him sincerely for that.

A sincere word of appreciation to the hon member for Riversdal, the LP’s spokesman, for his positive and persuasive contribution. I am convinced of the fact that he has skilfully given the hon member for Overvaal some food for thought. The hon member for Riversdal made his apologies, because he is in his constituency today. I can assure hon members, however, that he is someone one can depend on, a tower of strength.

It is right that the hon member for Sandton should be the leftist opposition in the House of Assembly’s ninth spokesman in nine years. Yesterday evening I checked up on the facts.

†I appreciate the positive and constructive starting point he made yesterday. If he maintains this level, he might break the record in holding that specific position. That is, of course, if his party permits that to happen.

The hon member referred to paragraph 35 of the White Paper. Perhaps he has not been the spokesman long enough to understand the meaning and the context of this paragraph. May I suggest that he study it again? Should he still not understand it, I will make sure that it is explained to him properly.

Why do you not explain it now? [Interjections.]

The hon member mentioned various matters which will be dealt with by the committee of enquiry which I have appointed. I invite him to submit these matters to the committee. The same applies to the matters raised by the hon member for Berea.

*I think it is now an excellent opportunity to adjourn for lunch. Mr Chairman, if it suits you, I shall proceed with my thanks to various individuals after lunch.

Order! I am sure it would suit everyone very nicely.

Mr Chairman, before business was suspended I was in the process of thanking various individuals, and I should like to proceed with that. In the governing party in the House of Assembly, one hon member after another dealt superbly and efficiently with this subject, the SADF and Armscor, and also with the Official Opposition.

The four hon members I have mentioned did so, as did the hon member for Newcastle in regard to the story about the swimming-pool and the propaganda relating to that. At a later stage, in regard to Unita, I shall come back to the hon member for Germiston District, who spoke with authority about propaganda and the securocrats. The hon member for Edenvale also referred, with understanding and compassion, to the role of the women in the SA Defence Force. I am very glad about the remarks she made about Mrs Elizabeth Albrechts. We should actually have greater appreciation for, and give more support to, the Southern Cross organisation, which is a tremendously good organisation, not only as far as the SA Defence Force is concerned, but as far as all the security forces are concerned. I want to thank the hon member for Edenvale again for the positive remarks he made.

It seems to me as if 11 April was the watershed day for the CP, and it was the hon member for Overvaal who was responsible for that turning-point. That is why he is so quiet today during these discussions. His statements on that day classified the CP as being reckless when it comes to security. They are so reckless about security that the erstwhile PFP’s “soft on security” seems like child’s play.

I know where you are soft!

To all hon members who spoke so positively and constructively about the SA Defence Force and Armscor, their finances, administration and achievements, I extend my sincere thanks. I have in mind the hon the Deputy Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Representatives, the hon members for Daljosaphat, Bishop Lavis and Robertson and the hon member Mr D P de K van Gend. That hon member made an exceptionally valuable contribution in regard to productivity and in regard to economising. Both are very important facets, and I believe that the SA Defence Force has taken note of what he said here this afternoon.

I want to thank hon members who spoke so positively and forcefully about the SA Defence Force’s action in South West Africa/Namibia. I trust that the people of South Africa are taking note of how their political representatives feel about this matter. Let me refer, in particular, to the hon member for Algoa, who made a singular contribution on the question of Swapo. The hon member for Smithfield also spoke with conviction about Southern Africa.

†The hon member for Bonteheuwel again did an excellent job. He also answered the hon member for Rust Ter Vaal about the SADF’s presence in residential areas and I trust that the hon member for Sandton took note of this exposition.

*The hon member for Rust Ter Vaal apparently still has problems with Naschem, even though he has personally been taken there and has regular contact with that institution. Last week he again brought his problems to my office, and I shall examine them once more. With respect to parity in regard to gratuities, which he mentioned here, and the medical benefits and conditions of service to which he referred, I should like to refer him to what I said in the House of Representatives on 25 April 1985 (Hansard: Representatives, col 2074). The policy which is presented there in connection with parity, and which applied at the time, still applies. I apologise on the hon member’s behalf; he said he could not be here this afternoon.

As always, the hon member for Diamant made a constructive and appreciative speech. The SA Defence Force appreciates his comments on Project Molteno, and we shall give attention to the other matters he raised during the discussion. †The hon member for Mooi River remains an appreciated friend of the SADF and of Armscor. I thank him for his realism about the difference between South West Africa/Namibia and Rhodesia, or the former Rhodesia. I will say a few words about Unita later.

On the Bushmen, I gave him, as well as the hon member Mr Razak, my personal assurance that those people will be looked after. This is, however, not the time to elaborate on this matter. His positive remarks about civic action are highly appreciated by the SADF.

The hon member for Constantia raised two questions. Firstly he spoke about suicide in the SADF. Cases of suicide as well as attempts thereto, decreased from 25 cases in 1986 to 11 in 1988, a decrease of 56%. During 1988 the occurrence of suicide in the SADF was 16,6 cases per 100 000 SADF members, compared to 18 cases per 100 000 civilians in the RSA; in other words, 16,6 cases for the military and 18 cases for the civilian set-up.

As hon members can see this figure is lower than for civilians in the RSA, especially if it is taken into account that the SADF consists mainly of men and that the evidence of suicide among men is three times that among women. Committees have been instituted in every unit with one of their functions being the initiation of preventative programmes. I can assure hon members that everything possible is being done to identify high-risk cases. Key personnel are trained to identify the early warning signs of possible suicide attempts and risk cases.

Secondly, I confirmed that a South African naval patrol boat sank near Saldanha during October 1988. There were no injuries or losses of personnel. The value of the boat was R2,4 million and the rescue operation was conducted at a cost of R92 360. This operation was unsuccessful. The prescribed procedures regarding investigations and reporting are being followed, and the loss will in due course be reported to Parliament by the Auditor-General.

I advise the hon member for Springfield to get his facts in order. In the reply to a written question (Question 222) this year by the hon member for Johannesburg North, I said that, as at 31 December 1988, a total of 70 people died as a result of contact with electrified fences on the northern and eastern borders. I suggest that the hon member asks his hon caucus colleagues why they did not inform him about the facts.

I cannot understand the hon member’s sudden concern about secret funds. All expenditures of the defence budget are subject to auditing by the Auditor-General.

I appreciate the hon member for Rylands’ positive remarks about nature conservation, a subject which is important to the SADF and to Armscor.

*The hon member for Pietersburg bothers me. I cannot understand why he singled out the problem of a medical doctor in this debate. Let me put it to him frankly that if he comes to see me with this information, I undertake, as always, to give attention to the matter and see whether we can solve the problem, regardless of whether it is inside or outside the department.

I would also welcome it if, in the event of the hon member encountering this type of case in the future, he did not hesitate to come to me at any time. My door is always open to him so that we can clear up these matters as quickly as possible. We cannot allow national service to become a millstone restricting any South African.

The hon member is apparently very upset about the Mozambique visit. The facts at my disposal indicate that contact between representatives of that country and those of South Africa took place during the visit. Owing to the value of such a visit to South Africa, a military aircraft was made available. What was said in Parliament was true. I suggest, however, that the hon member discuss this matter with me too, and I shall see whether I can satisfy him in regard to any questions he may have in this regard.

The hon member for Middelburg—and I like him—has a calm and collected approach. I also appreciate his concern about 4 SAL Let me assure him that 4 SAI occupies a singular place in the SA Defence Force. I should like to advise the hon member, however, to make a better study of the Defence Force. If he had done so, many of his remarks would possibly have been unnecessary. He is free to give evidence before the committee of enquiry. As I said yesterday, I extend this invitation, of course, to all hon members of Parliament.

†I listened with interest to the balanced contribution by the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, a man who knows the Defence Force. His suggestions are appreciated and I recommend that he submits his views to the appointed committee.

The hon member for Umzinto again proved today that he is a friend of the SADF and I have great appreciation for his positive remarks.

I thank all hon members who have so far confirmed their faith in the SADF and Armscor to protect peace and maintain stability in the RSA.

I said yesterday that I would deal with the South West Africa/Namibia situation today. I intend doing so under various headings. In an effort to give this Committee an overview of and a proper insight into developments, however, I wish to point out that the hon the State President spoke extensively on this subject on Thursday, 13 April. The next day my colleague, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, also spoke on this subject. Furthermore, an extensive briefing was given to the committees of the defence and foreign affairs study groups of all parties on 18 April.

I must point out that there are many developments and documents relating to the implementation of the settlement plan for South West Africa/Namibia. This is a complicated issue. It dates back to developments during the late seventies when Resolution 435 first came onto the table.

It would serve no purpose to deal with the long history of Resolution 435. I intend dealing with the more recent events.

The unfortunate events of the past two weeks arose from the fact that Swapo recklessly violated the Geneva Protocol. I am sure nobody in this House can disagree with me. This protocol stipulates that Swapo should have withdrawn to bases at the 16th parallel in Angola by 31 March. From these bases they could eventually return, unarmed and according to a timetable, to South West Africa/Namibia.

Swapo blatantly ignored these stipulations. I repeatedly pointed out this situation in public speeches. More important, however, is that this neglect to meet the Geneva Protocol was raised at various meetings of the different levels of the Joint Military Monitoring Committee. It also happened at the Joint Commission in Havana. The international community and the parties directly involved in the transition date of 1 April were therefore forewarned.

On 31 March my colleague and I brought the entire picture and its consequences to the attention of Mr Ahtisaari and Gen Prem Chand in Windhoek. What more could we have done? The next day, on 1 April, the Swapo terrorists were spotted and the South West African Police acted in a brave and determined manner.

At this stage I want to deal with the developments under various headings. The first heading relates to the different or differing role definitions brought about by the agreement on 1 April as starting point for the settlement plan. From that day onwards the Administrator-General, as South Africa’s representative, became responsible for the day-to-day administration of South West Africa/Namibia, in close co-operation with the United Nations’ Secretary-General’s special representative, Mr Ahtisaari. The Commissioner of Police for SWA, General Gouws, accepted the responsibility for the overall maintenance of law and order, including security.

The officer in command of the SWA Territorial Force had to oversee the military’s confinement to bases in South West Africa/Namibia. This took place, and the South African military as well as the SWA Territorial Force respected and obeyed the agreements. Troops, like 101 Battalion, were demobilised at that stage as well as the South West Africa/Namibia Area Forces.

I pointed out yesterday how 101 Battalion acted with speed and motivation when they were recalled for duty. This is an example of dedication and devotion for which this Committee should have only the highest appreciation.

In order to understand subsequent events, it is vital to keep the role definition or the responsibilities of individuals which I have explained, in mind.

When it became obvious to the SWA police that the incursions which had started on 1 April were occurring over a distance of approximately 500 km, the SWA Police called on the SADF for help.

The SADF, aware of the fact that it has always been and is the target of accusations and malicious propaganda, followed a correct and cool-headed procedure.

The SADF did not want to intervene on the spot in support of the SWA Police without the knowledge, approval and consent of the UN representatives. Had they done so, South Africa would have been blamed for violating the settlement plan. Subsequently the SADF were deployed and their successes in support of the brave and heroic SWA Police are common knowledge. They were deployed in full force on 2 April.

The redefining of roles also meant that the SADF was no longer responsible for media liaison in South West Africa/Nambia. References to the effect that the SADF were unwilling to co-operate with the media were therefore based on a wrong appreciation or misunderstanding of the settlement plan. In fact, the SADF as from 1 April, took up the position comparable to their support of the SAP in the internal unrest situation here in the RSA.

*At this stage let me deal with the second main point in connection with the development relating to the contingency planning of the SA Defence Force and the SWA Territorial Force.

The SA Defence Force has faithfully and precisely kept to all the agreements in letter and in spirit. It has always been, and still is, as always, prepared for any eventuality.

The CP took great delight in levelling accusations at me. These wild allegations manifest themselves in the Defence Force. I spoke about that yesterday, and several hon members have efficiently dealt with those CP stories. I am therefore not going to rub any more salt into already smarting wounds. Is mercy not a positive characteristic!

I shall nevertheless lift the veil on contingency planning without revealing aspects of tactical planning. The fact of the matter is that over and above the SA Defence Force’s presence in all the military bases in South West Africa, three combat groups of the SA Defence Force were also at the ready at Walvis Bay, Oshivello and Groot-fontein, whilst reinforcements were also at the ready in neighbouring parts of the RSA.

The hon member for Overvaal speaks very lightly about these serious matters and makes simple remarks when we are speaking about the SA Defence Force being available. But that is how this SA Defence Force operates. It does not talk, but when necessary, it takes action. It does so purposefully and with a force and effectiveness that compels respect far beyond our borders.

The Official Opposition in the House of Assembly’s allegation that the officers of the SA Defence Force and I were caught with our pants down, as it were, is the most vacuous, unreasonable and senseless accusation any reasonable person can imagine. [Interjections.] If there was ever an example of “blunder politics”, it is to be found in these CP accusations. They are still going to get it in the neck—and very much so—because they are looking for trouble. This is much worse than the dilemma of the poor DP in regard to the hon member for Claremont’s application to join their ranks. This CP is digging its own grave, orchestrating its own defeat, because everything that happens is, after all, clear and transparent to the average, reasonable person, even without being specifically informed in advance. It is a question of confidence in and loyalty towards the SA Defence Force.

The average reasonable man who reads his balanced newspapers—and this excludes the Patriot and the Vrye Weekblad—deals with the recent events in South West Africa/Namibia with greater insight and understanding than certain hon members of this Committee. Incidentally, about this so-called Vrye Weekblad, I wonder from what and from whom it is now actually free, because it seems to me as if it is a slave to the anti-campaign. It is negative and destructive, it thrives on fabricated so-called mistakes and shortcomings. That is the attitude of someone who breaks things down, not of someone who builds things up.

Let me, however, come back to the contingency planning. Naturally the SA Defence Force has consistently assessed military possibilities. One possibility was that Swapo would want to fill the vacuum to the north of Owambo because of the northward movement of the Cubans. The assessment concerned Swapo’s fear that Unita would fill the vacuum so as to get at them from the south.

A second assessment was that it was unlikely that Swapo would infiltrate at that stage. According to the assessment, this would tarnish Swapo’s so-called international esteem and give it the image of an aggressor and violator of agreements. I must say at once: Sam Nujoma has shown that he knows little about strategy, because this exercise of his, of sending his people to certain death, has damaged his international esteem in the eyes of reasonable and realistic leaders. There are numerous statements relating to that. It is therefore with a view to the above-mentioned possibilities that the SA Defence Force did its contingency planning, and was ready when called upon.

†I do not want to dwell on the objectives of Swapo. These have been analysed and pointed out again and again. In a nutshell it appears that Swapo wanted to create the impression of having established bases inside South West Africa/Namibia. Remember the humiliation that awaits Swapo terrorists when they return to South West Africa/Namibia unarmed. That would confirm their image as losers and people defeated militarily, despite their hollow promises about liberation. In other words they will have to return unarmed and that will confirm that they are the losers.

The military defeats suffered over the years by Swapo have weakened that organisation. A simple reference to numbers tells the story. Between 1966 and 1988 more that 9 000 members of Swapo were killed. I believe this figure to be much higher if those are added who were wounded and who could not receive proper medical care in the absence of such Swapo facilities. It is a fact that Swapo cares very little for its wounded—hon members said that yesterday. Incidents are known where such wounded Swapo people have been brutally killed on the spot by fellow Swapo members.

No organisation with such a poor military performance can lay claim to the image of being strong and powerful. Obviously they tried in desperation to establish such an image. It is also for this reason that I have appealed more than once to the pro-democratic parties in South West Africa/Namibia to join forces in view of the election.

*South Africa has done a great deal to place South West Africa on the road to a wonderful future. Great success has been achieved with the development of the territory, its growth and progress. South Africa has gone out of its way to create and develop the necessary infrastructure. Consequently there are 2 394 km of railway line, 4 382 km of tarred roads and 38 380 km of dirt roads. This is a transport network that crisscrosses the territory. There are also 28 airports. A great deal has also been done in the medical field. There are 60 hospitals with 3 390 nurses, 7 600 beds for patients and 250 civilian doctors. Numerous school buildings have sprung up. teachers have been trained and 94% of all children in the territory attend school. A development of such an infrastructure in a country as large as West Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg put together, but with a sparse population of a mere 1,3 people per square kilometre, is an enormous achievement. I doubt whether there is another country in Africa that can boast of such infrastructure or development with the advent of independence. I really think it is a feather in the cap for South Africa. In brief, South Africa has done everything and more to bring South West Africa to the starting blocks for independence. The pro-democratic parties should seize this opportunity with both hands.

†Sir, I come now to my third heading. It concerns our successes achieved at Mount Etjo. My hon colleague and I went to Mount Etjo with a sense of realism. There we encountered a similar sense of realism from the other relevant parties, namely Angola and Cuba as well as the observers. This gave us optimism and hope. We were not prepared to accept a cease-fire and we stated South Africa’s firm standpoint in a letter to the Secretary-General. The four points of this letter were:

To cut it short, South Africa’s standpoint was accepted and supported. This led to the setting of a dateline for the exfiltration of Swapo from South West Africa/Namibia into Angola. I agree this could become a problem area. South Africa is adamant that the time schedule for the settlement plan should not be affected. In this regard I now wish to refer hon members to paragraph 11 of the Mount Etjo Declaration, which reads:

Hon members may now ask me about the deadline already set for Swapo’s return to Angola. We have extended this date for very practical reasons. The basic question is: How do we know and what assurance do we have that the approximately 1 600 Swapo terrorists who infiltrated have, in fact, returned to Angola? Here I wish to point out that one should keep realism in mind. If one takes the number of Swapo terrorists killed as approximately 300 out of a total of 1 600, one must accept that for every one killed, at least three others have been neutralised. It means that at least 60% of the total number of infiltrators have been neutralised.

South Africa is therefore at this stage not so much concerned about numbers, because the Wambo people themselves have clearly got the message about Swapo’s devilish intentions. Furthermore, the South West African Police, assisted by the SADF, are active in Owambo. At this stage no cease-fire exists. Our security forces are, however, assisting the local population in repairing kraals where damage was caused.

I now wish to inform Parliament about the outcome of the second extraordinary meeting of the joint commission held at Swawel yesterday and last night. The South African delegation proposed the following steps to facilitate the departure of the remaining armed Swapo elements who illegally entered the territory of South West Africa/Namibia on 1 April 1989. This procedure has been accepted by the South African Government. The procedure contains the following elements:

Angola and Cuba will obtain from Swapo a cassette tape recording of messages by Swapo commanders instructing Swapo armed elements who are still in Namibia to return to Angola immediately. The messages which will be broadcast in the territory by commercial radio channels and through ground and sky-shout facilities, and which will be in the languages most commonly used by Swapo, will not contain any political propaganda. South Africa will vet the messages prior to their being broadcast and the tape recording will be made available by Angola and Cuba to South Africa at Ruacana border post by 12h00 local time on Sunday, 23 April, at the latest.

Apart from the instructions to armed Swapo elements to return to Angola, the message will also state that, firstly, all Swapo elements in Angola are being moved to positions north of 16 parallel; and secondly, as of 18h00 local time on Wednesday, 26 April 1989, all security forces will withdraw to their bases where they will remain for a period of 60 hours. This will create a safe passage period during which all armed Swapo elements still in South West Africa/Namibia must withdraw to Angola.

A period during which the departure of all armed Swapo elements from the territory will be verified, will follow on the period during which the security forces withdraw to their bases. The length of this period will depend on the verification of information regarding the number of armed Swapo elements who have made use of the opportunity to return to Angola and upon the successful location of arms caches which have been established in the territory. The South African delegation indicated that the period required to verify the departure of armed Swapo elements from the territory and the location of arms caches, could be considerably shortened if Swapo could co-operate in providing information regarding the location of such arms caches. A joint statement to this effect was released a short while ago.

I now come to my fourth heading which relates to propaganda machines, amongst others some international media, churchmen and so-called political observers who try to pick up the pieces in favour of Swapo. South Africa is familiar with campaigns directed at placing us in the accused dock. This happens by bending realities and truths against us. This process has begun. There are deliberate efforts to present us and especially the SADF and other security forces, as the bad guys, the bullies and the culprits.

I predicted and anticipated a propaganda attack on South Africa and our security forces, but I must say that I am shocked, and all reasonable people, not only in this country but all over the world, should be shocked by the intensity and the ferocity of this campaign. Those who make a habit of blaming South Africa for all the ills one can imagine or whose profession it is to discredit South Africa, make our security forces their main target. This is why every incident is now jumped upon to blame them for so-called brutalities and atrocities.

May I remind hon members that Sam Nujoma did not send his men on a mission to a Sunday school picnic. He who is not sent to a Sunday school picnic cannot and should not expect Sunday school picnic treatment. He who comes to kill, to maim and to intimidate cannot and will not be treated like a friendly guest. In general our security forces acted with restraint and discipline, but when a man’s own life is endangered the rules of the game become tough. Hon members should take note of operational drills.

Writing in the Cape Times of 18 April, Simon Barber, in his “Washington Letter” gave the correct perspective and interpretation. I quote:

Pictures have been published in overseas media and shown on TV with the intent to illustrate alleged South African atrocities and extreme violence. The background and circumstances and the reality of the situation are not reported. Nujoma’s so-called liberators are portrayed as victims of South African aggression and inhumanity. The purpose is to project Mr Nujoma as Mr Clean.

In the coming days and weeks we shall have to gear ourselves to meet vicious and slanderous propaganda campaigns. Hon members must remember that Nujoma has been the blue-eyed boy of many who sit in the UN. I therefore appeal to this Committee and in particular to our responsible media to see this propaganda for what it is and to maintain balance and reason.

As far as the allegations levelled at the security forces are concerned, I appreciate the fact that a commission has been appointed to investigate alleged intimidation and misconduct. However, I seriously request the UN, whose primary task it is to oversee fair and free elections in South West Africa, to take a strong stand against these attacks against our security forces. I expect this to be done through the Secretary-General of the UN’s special representative in Windhoek, Mr Ahtisaari.

One question that springs to mind is: Why the concerted efforts to get Swapo terrorists off the hook? After all, they started this incursion. What about their brutal killing and maiming of people, even their own wounded?

The SADF, in support of the SWA Police, had a task to do. This task was done admirably under very difficult conditions, and I hope that the truth will prevail. We live in testing times, and our own media who contribute towards shaping public opinion have a responsibility to give the true perspective on events and realities.

*We are accustomed to being blamed for events which we—ie the SA Defence Force—have had no hand in.

It is true that everyone writing about the events of the past two weeks only gives an account of two crucial questions. The first is who instructed the Swapo terrorists to come to South West Africa/Namibia, and the second is who violated the series of agreements calculated to bring about peace and stability and improve people’s quality of life.

Surely the answer is clearly Sam Nujoma, someone whose misdeeds and atrocities are shifted to one side because the so-called “racist” South Africans did what they were supposed to do to bring about peace and stability and to protect lives.

The truth is therefore that there are still uncertainties. Some of the uncertainties involve the return of Swapo terrorists to Angola, to which I have previously referred. A positive aspect is that Angola is doing its best to get them out of South West Africa.

Now, however, we must not sit around in sackcloth and ashes, but move ahead intrepidly and with the strength we have at our command. Bothersome issues will be sorted out.

I now come to my fifth main point. It relates to the significance of teamwork. The successful negotiations in recent months were only possible because the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Defence worked together as a team and as a unit. Departmental interests were merged in national interests, and that is why the Republic of South Africa could act honourably and forcefully.

The SA Defence Force’s military successes have paved the way for imaginative diplomatic initiatives, and here the hon the State President has also given worthy leadership and has participated with authority. When the time was ripe, these two departments got down to it and won esteem for South Africa in circles in which it matters.

That is why I am paying tribute to the respective teams, ie the officials under the leadership of Gen Geldenhuys and Mr Neil van Heerden, and also Dr Neil Barnard. [Interjections.] They have jointly served South Africa and kept its flag flying, whether in Brazzaville, Kinshasa, Cairo, New York, Geneva or Luanda. South Africa salutes these men.

Hon members will perhaps have noticed that the Chief of the SA Defence Force was absent for most of the discussion of this Vote. The Government instructed the negotiating team to participate in this joint commission which, as I said, sat in Ruacana yesterday and late into last night. He only returned this morning at half past one, but I can assure hon members that his interest lies here in the discussion of this Vote. [Interjections.]

Let me conclude this portion by saying that the SA Defence Force is ready for any eventuality. The truth of the matter is that no self-respecting country or defence force can watch with folded arms when chaos threatens and violence runs riot. Conflict is not, however, our main purpose; we seek peace and order. That is the essence of the democracy South Africa is building up.

The SA Defence Force is ready, and if it has to relax its iron fist for the sake of peace, in the interests of the country and people’s security, there could be a very far-reaching ripple-effect. That is why it is not our first option. That is the reason why self-control is necessary. Self-control and boldness are needed, so that all ways and means can be employed to preserve peace and allow people to develop. The Republic of South Africa is acting in what we believe to be the best interests of everyone. I give hon members the assurance, however, that the situation will be carefully monitored and that every precaution will be taken, as our record indicates.

This brings me finally to Unita. The hon member for Mooi River—I see he is here—and the hon member for Germiston District referred to this. I should like to inform this Committee that all is well with Dr Savimbi and his people. International propagandists are, it is true, bent on trying to cause a rift between Dr Savimbi and his leaders. This is an attempt to isolate him and to weaken Unita. Dr Savimbi is a strong leader, however, and they will not easily get the better of him. Militarily he is strong, his fighters are motivated and they perform their tasks well and with thoroughness.

It is no secret that I see him regularly; he is continually kept abreast of matters concerning him and Unita. He has given his full support to this settlement plan. It is the withdrawal of the Cubans from Angola, in particular, that suits him, because the Angolan forces, without Cuban support and reinforcements, are no match for Dr Savimbi’s men of steel.

As far as our relationships are concerned, I have previously made it clear that friends do not simply leave one another in the lurch. What hon members must also remember is that the USA is in honour bound to Unita. Here it is a question of objectives and Western values that have to be maintained and developed. If the USA is thus in honour bound to Unita, surely it is no disgrace for South Africa to pursue the fine friendship it has had throughout the years.

Mr Chairman, I am privileged to follow the hon the Minister and his brilliant contribution. We on this side of the House want to tell him that we are proud of him as our Minister.

At a stage when South Africa was looking for someone to lead it in suppressing those persons we wanted to suppress, the right man was at the helm. [Interjections.] When we started negotiations, and were looking for a strategist, we found the strategist in the same person.

We also have the greatest appreciation for what the Chief of the Defence Force and the staff achieved in this regard, although they worked behind the scenes most of the time. We honour them and salute them for the great task they perform.

This afternoon I am also standing here as one of the thousands of fathers who in the past number of years, such as the two decades of war in South West Africa, had to take leave of a son so that he could continue this struggle.

However, before I come to that, I want to mention the interjection made by one of the hon members of the CP in connection with a letter in this morning’s Die Burger from which the hon member for Edenvale quoted. The hon CP member said the letter had been planted.

It is a letter from a Mrs Ans de Beer of 63 Barnard Street, Elarduspark Pretoria. She is not ashamed to give her name either. The contents of this letter have hurt the CP. I am quoting her:

Here she is referring to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly—

[Interjections.]

[Interjections.]

Order! I did not hear properly. Did the hon member say that the CP leaders were floundering about in the mud?

Mr Chairman, I am quoting from a letter.

That does not matter. I do not think it is appropriate to say that. The hon member must withdraw it. [Interjections ]

Mr Chairman, I withdraw the words on behalf of the lady.

No, no! That is not what I asked the hon member to do. The hon member must simply withdraw it! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

I am sorry that the hon member for Pietersburg brought the case of a voter here to this House this morning to introduce it into this debate. There are ways in which an hon member handles the affairs of a voter in this Place and he should not bring them to an open debate and deal with them there. One does not do justice to the cause of one’s voter in this way, and this was done merely to score a political point.

I have said that I am standing here as the father of a son who was also in the Defence Force during this period and also served on the border. I want to express my most sincere thanks to the Defence Force for the way in which they gave our children thorough training at a time when they were in a position which we were extremely worried about.

My son was privileged to be selected for 8 SAI in Upington. Although there is a great deal of gossip about the so-called “varkbakke” our children had to eat from, our son could not have been fed better food anywhere in the world than in that camp.

When he was selected to undergo a leadership course, I was astounded to see how the staff of the Defence Force test their own training by virtually discouraging these young leaders from taking the course in order to see whether they do not have a weak spot somewhere so that they have to decline. The more they tried to discour age these young men, the more determined they became to take these courses.

When they eventually arrived at Oudtshoorn to take the course the same tactics were used to see whether they did not want to back out and decline. Yet again this motivated the young men even more and drove them to the highest achievement they could possibly make.

When these young men eventually had to make their final choice and they were given lists to indicate where they wanted to go, the list for the red area was filled first. They fell over one another to get their names on those lists. This tells me what the quality of the training of those young leaders of ours was.

I can illustrate the trauma in the life of the parents by means of a single example. When this young son of ours came home to bid us farewell before he went to the border, and we were standing at the car, he said a few final words to me which I will never forget. My son took me by the arm, looked me in the eye and said: “Dad, I want you to know that I am not afraid to die. You must pray that I do not fall into the hands of the enemy alive or return maimed.” In this sentence there is a world of training, depth, humanity and maturity.

All I can do is pin this rosette to the lapel of the first corporal at Upington right up to the major in Oudtshoorn. I can tell them that when our son eventually returned alive and he stood in front of us at Waterkloof Airport without a scratch, I recalled the words of the hon the Minister in this place. He said—this is also the motto of the Defence Force—that if it is within their power, they would like to return the young men to their parents alive and well. We not only got our son back alive and well; we got a man back. We got back a motivated, vocationally aware and deeply religious young man who knows which direction he wants to move in. I want to give all the credit for this to the pastoral care our children get in the Defence Force. Even during “Vasbyt” there was a pastoral attendant among the last three men who staggered the last two kilometres with their sore feet. He struggled the whole way with those young men.

In the midst of the struggle and in the midst of what was envisaged and what was going to happen to us, the SA Defence Force gave South Africa a generation we can proudly go forward to meet the future with. The Defence Force gave them substance, inspiration and an objective. All they ask of us is to support them in their awareness of what they want to contribute to this country to develop this country and make it great.

Our struggle is continuing. When I thank the hon the Minister for the concession he made yesterday in respect of training, I should like to support him in the fact that preparedness must be put first at all costs, because the struggle is continuing. Every young man must still be called up at all costs. Even my young son, that little Van Zyl, must be called up, he must not hide behind his elder brother and miss out on this privilege in his life.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow on the hon member for Brentwood, who told us about his experience when his son, like many of our sons, had to go to the Defence Force to do border duty.

We are also thinking of the fathers and mothers who saw children off who did not return. In particular I want to mention a case in Ladysmith in which a young man from my town, Danie Fourie, died of wounds sustained by him on the border during the first week of April 1989. We are thinking of his father and mother who have lost their son. Danie died for his country and made the ultimate sacrifice, and we wish to express our deepest sympathy.

I believe that if we have to make war, we have to fight, but if this can be prevented, it is better to have peace. For that reason we wish to say in gratitude today that we appreciate the negotiations and the steps taken by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Defence. They have brought us peace and they no longer expose our young boys to danger, but allow them to live for South Africa.

For that reason I find the attitude of the CP incomprehensible in many respects. I should very much like to exchange views with the hon members of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly in respect of South West Africa and the peace there. However, I truly have to say that those hon members do not have a point of view, a policy or a point of departure. [Interjections.]

I want to prove my statement and I want to make a few comments. What, in point of fact, is the CP’s point of view regarding Resolution 435? I know that when Resolution 435 was accepted in the Cabinet, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Lichtenburg were members of the Cabinet. However, they subsequently tried to dissociate themselves from Resolution 435. I have never been able to establish with certainty whether the hon members of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly are for or against Resolution 435. If they are against it, what do they suggest in its place?

We have had many agreements which jointly constituted a settlement plan negotiated by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Defence. Are the CP satisfied with that settlement plan or do they reject it? If they reject it, what do they suggest in its place? There is no clear CP point of view, because the CP never deal with a matter on merit; they look at the negative side and the possible grievances and then they spread their sails to catch the wind from whichever side they can draw opportunistic advantage. Their tactics are transparent. I want to give hon members an example.

Let us see what happened shortly after the invasion of Swapo on 1 April. At that dramatic moment, when we were all intensely worried, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly appeared on television. He tried to project the image of a strong leader. He tried to present himself as a man of iron who brooked no nonsense. He expressly laid down four definite conditions. Let us name them.

Firstly, he said that Resolution 435 had to be revoked immediately. Secondly, he said that the settlement plan had to to be cancelled. Thirdly, he said that the Untag forces had to be driven out and fourthly, he said that the Defence Force in South West Africa had to be released immediately. Those were his four conditions.

A few days later, on 13 April, the same person, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, made a speech here on the spot where I am now standing. He did not repeat one of those conditions. He abandoned all the conditions that he had laid down in full view of the entire nation only a few days before. [Interjections.] Is that not an example of an unprincipled, haphazard party that takes an opportunistic stand in a situation?

There is not a single official document on what the CP intends to do with South West Africa. In his speech the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly proclaimed a long argument to the effect that we had made ourselves powerless by our own promises to implement Resolution 435, and that we had therefore been caught off guard. He blamed the hon the Minister for the fact that the settlement plan did not make provision for the necessary protection.

At the same time it is interesting to hear Swapo’s version of the story. What does Swapo say happened at the border while, according to the CP, our army was asleep?

†An article in the Cape Times of 13 April 1989 said the following:

*He went on to say:

We have comments from two sources on the same matter. The CP, on the one hand, says that we were asleep, whereas Swapo, on the other hand, says that it was a well-planned strategy to “bushwack” them. Both these statements are untrue. They have no merit, but both statements are aimed at breaking down our planning, our Government and our military force. That is the heart of the matter, and it is simply not good enough.

What is the CP’s attitude towards peace in South West Africa? I am merely referring to the Patriot of 3 March 1989 in which the following appeared in bold letters: “Onttrekking aan Suidwes is peperduur.” The insinuation is that it is an expensive process and that it should not be continued. Would the CP, in other words, prefer perpetuating the war because it would be cheaper? There is total uncertainty as to the CP’s attitude.

What are the underlying factors? The underlying factors are an attempt to break down the image of the Government and especially that of the hon the Minister of Defence and an attempt to build up the image of the leaders of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. [Interjections.] Therefore we must understand that this propaganda campaign being launched by the CP is not in the interests of South Africa and its people but in the political interests of the CP. In other words, they do not place South Africa first; the CP’s interests are always placed first.

It is clear that the hon the Minister of Defence, owing to his success in his negotiations for peace as well as on the military front, must be denigrated as an individual. For that reason the hon member for Overvaal … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon member for Klip River will forgive me if I do not follow his speech. I have limited time and I want to address myself to certain comments made by the hon the Minister of Defence in his introductory speech yesterday. I regret that I was busy in another Chamber at the time.

He referred to the board of enquiry that he had set into action concerning the possible smuggling of ivory by the Defence Force. The hon the Minister may be unaware of the fact that during the discussion on a private member’s motion earlier this session I expressed myself at length about this and in fact I praised the hon the Minister’s actions and deplored the untruthful nature of the allegations that had been made against the Defence Force by a certain Mr Craig van Note in the United States. I spoke at fair length about the activities of the Defence Force with regard to conservation. I want to embroider on this a little. I want to talk about the operations of the ecological services section of the SADF. I want to expand on it and make some suggestions to the hon the Minister that he might like to consider.

The Defence Force qualifies as the fourth largest land owner in South Africa in that it controls in the region of 60 training areas with a total area of more than 525 000 hectares. That is more than half a million hectares. It therefore has an important responsibility in that many of these areas are of considerable environmental and ecological significance. The ecological services branch of the Defence Force exists to meet this responsibility. I would like to place on record that I believe it to be doing a very fine job indeed with minimal resources. It is headed by a Major Gottschalk, an officer with environmental qualifications, and he is backed up by a fluctuating number of national servicemen who are largely trained ecologists, or at very least in some instances agriculturalists. This department is doing a very competent job indeed.

I had the opportunity towards the end of last year of seeing something of the work of the ecological services when at the invitation of the Defence Force I visited some of the areas where they are active. Most areas involved are areas where training in one form or another is carried out and the object is to keep any adverse results of these training exercises to an absolute minimum. A complete ecological management plan for each military area is produced, integrating as far as is possible with the military requirements in the area.

Typical of many bases is the conservation area surrounding the Hoedspruit air base, which I visited. It is being run by a very dedicated young officer, a national serviceman. Here there are numerous species of game, including endangered species such as rhino, and it is a wilderness area which allows limited access to the public. Money is of course in very short supply. The result is a conservation exercise of considerable importance to the base itself. It is used to promote environmental awareness among the personnel of the base, both Permanent Force and the national servicemen, and they are proud of it. This environmental training is carried out by the use of films, lectures, video presentations, as well as opportunities to visit, observe and share the environment in these areas. As far as the training programme for national servicemen is concerned, I think it is admirable.

I believe, incidentally, that the Hoedspruit area is a regular winner of a floating trophy awarded annually and I understand that three floating trophies are awarded for nature conservation, environmental conservation and environmental education respectively.

Another most interesting area which I had the opportunity of visiting was Riemvasmaak which adjoins the Augrabies Falls in the Orange river, something like 120 km west of Upington. Here a most interesting experiment is being conducted in that a unique co-operation plan is in progress between the Defence Force on one hand and the National Parks Board on the other. The whole 73 000 hectare area is being managed jointly so that training exercises have a minimum effect on the natural environment. It is a somewhat dry and arid area, and an ideal training area from that point of view, but the results achieved by means of this co-operation in what is termed a Contract National Park are again most praiseworthy.

All in all the Defence Force is doing well with its ecological services department but I believe that they deserve more support in terms of a larger Permanent Force establishment. This is my plea to the hon the Minister today. Obviously national servicemen come and go and every intake is different in terms of the available expertise of trainees. It must be extremely difficult to keep up any sort of standard and I believe that the hon the Minister should allow an expansion of the department in order to build on what has been a very good start.

I want briefly to raise another matter that I raised in the earlier debate and this concerns the dangers that the implementation of Resolution 435 holds for wildlife and conservation in South West Africa/Namibia. It became very clear to me on a recent visit to West Caprivi, which is a conservation area, that it was the army that was the major protector of game, certainly in West Caprivi and probably the Kaokoveld. The big herds of elephant and buffalo that I saw in the Caprivi were there because the army was there. There is no way that the limited manpower and resource capacity of the SWA Nature Conservation Department can possibly stop a wave of poaching that is absolutely inevitable as the Defence Force leave the area. This is of immense importance to the international conservation community and I believe that the UN through Untag have a responsibility to ensure that game in these areas receives adequate protection.

I am afraid that my own forecast of what will happen without urgent action by the UN is that all that game will have been poached out within a period of six months.

There is just a final word since I hardly have any time left. I would like to express myself to the hon the Minister on another subject. Having read his opening address, I wish he would resist the temptation to have a little bit of a political slanging match against the DP about being soft on security. The hon the Minister loves these games. I wish he would restrain himself and not make these wild, incredible and unbelievable accusations about my party.

Mr Chairman. I hope the hon member for Bryanston will forgive me if I do not follow on the topic he spoke on, but I would like to concentrate on something else this afternoon.

*I want to associate myself with the thanks expressed to the hon the Minister of Defence, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and our Defence Force on their really brilliant actions in connection with the South West Africa affair. I also want to express my thanks to Armscor for their fine achievements. We are very proud of them.

This afternoon I again want to place on record that we in this House and everyone in South Africa must concede that we will be eternally grateful to the hon the State President for what he has done, because when the great onslaught against South Africa came, he was the one who started to develop the Defence Force and Armscor. We pay tribute to him this afternoon for this.

I have been actively involved in politics for 20 years now and have been in public life for 12 of those years. Never in those 20 years have I encountered a party which is more politically hypocritical, with all due respect, than the CP. This was very clearly proved during the past week, particularly as regards the hon the State President. With all due respect, the hon member and a good friend of mine, the hon member for Overvaal, led the choir. It was he—who referred to our stabbing the hon the State President in the back—who said in 1984 in front of the Embassy staff in Washington …

And therefore it is the truth.

It was certainly not true. I am quoting how this incident was reported:

I shall not pursue this matter, because I believe we can only smile when the hon member for Overvaal speaks about a giant in politics, like our hon State President. [Interjections.]

I also want to tell the hon member he must avoid the expression “stabbing in the back” because there is not a party in this country which has vilified the person of the hon the State President more than the CP, which virtually stabbed him in the back every day. They know this. As a matter of fact they did not even spare Mrs Botha in the process. I really want to tell them today that in the same way that they vilified him. there is not a party in this country which has more appreciation for the person of Pieter Willem Botha, for what he has done for South Africa in his lifetime, than the NP. We want to assure the hon member that he will not succeed in driving a wedge between the hon the State President and us.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly had quite a lot to say about South West Africa and, with all due respect, really made a fool of the CP. This afternoon I nevertheless want to take up the cudgels for him in his absence, because I think we must consider who his advisers were. He had two advisers, the hon member for Overvaal, who is their shadow Minister of Defence, and the hon member for Soutpansberg, who is their shadow Minister of Foreign Affairs. I think that tells the whole story, and one need not elaborate on it. I am going to discuss their Defence Force policy in a moment.

They were the ones who gave the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly the wrong information, and as a result only the CP and Swapo disagreed with the actions taken by the Defence Force in South West Africa. The rest of the world, the rest of our country and all the parties in this Committee, except for the CP, agreed with it. They can therefore deduce for themselves how wrongly their leader was advised.

In Washington on the same occasion in 1985 the hon member for Overvaal told the officials there that if he became the Minister of Foreign Affairs, a portfolio he preferred to Defence … I shall not continue reporting what he said because I can unfortunately not do so as it would be unparliamentary.

I think the hon member for Overvaal tried to tell us one of two things—either he admitted or felt that he was not fit for the post of shadow Minister of Defence, and we have no fault to find with that, or he meant that the shadow Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon member for Soutpansberg, was not fit for the post of shadow Minister of Foreign Affairs. We have even less fault to find with that; we support that too.

Today I want to ask South Africa something here in all fairness. I think all the parties here will agree with me. If South Africa must choose today who it wants as its Minister of Defence and as its Minister of Foreign Affairs, the question would be whether one would prefer the hon Ministers Magnus Malan and Pik Botha on the one hand, or the hon members Koos van der Merwe and Tom Langley on the other. [Interjections.] I submit that there will be no doubt in the minds of our people in this country in respect of who they want. [Interjections.]

As regards their policy in connection with the SA Defence Force the CP says that they want a White defence force. They do not want people of colour in our Defence Force; they want a White defence force. I want to say two things to them in this regard. They say that only our White young men may defend South Africa’s borders. If the hon members want a Whites only defence force, because they want a defence force for each people, I submit that the outcome of their policy would be that only our young White men would have to pay that price.

What do they also say? We have young Coloureds, young Indians and young Blacks of this country in our Defence Force who voluntarily protect our country’s borders side by side with our young men and pay the same price our young men have to pay—some have to pay the highest price. The CP is telling them that we do not want them. Today I want to say here that we thank those Coloured, Indian and Black young men just as sincerely as we thank our own young men. [Interjections.] We want to tell them that we greatly appreciate this. A person of colour fighting there voluntarily has more patriotism than the entire CP put together. [Interjections.] Another aspect of the policy of the CP is that it does not believe in negotiation. Is that also a lie, that the CP does not believe in negotiation?

We believe in negotiation.

Is that so? I want to tell the hon member for Overvaal that as recently as last August his colleague the hon member for Pot-gietersrus said the following at a youth rally in Rustenburg:

Were you there?

No, this was reported in the newspaper, and it was not denied. It appeared in Beeld of 22 August 1988. In other words, to everything the hon the Minister of Defence and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs have done to prevent bloodshed the CP is saying no, we must be strong in Africa. The CP is really creating the impression that they are a bit trigger happy. I want to quote something else, and it was not said by the hon member for Potgietersrus. I am quoting:

This was said by the hon member for Pietersburg in 1981, when he was still a member of the NP. He went on to say the following, and I am quoting from his election pamphlet:

It changed!

I want to tell the CP that they have changed completely in the light of what the hon member for Pietersburg said.

That is not true!

But the hon member … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, SWA and the successes achieved on the road to independence for that country, are prominently in the news. Many political parties have praised the Defence Force for the role played by it in that country. One cannot escape the fact that a terrorist war has been fought for 20 years, and to counter warfare of this nature is rather difficult. The terrorist has great advantages in that he can decide where and when to hit, where to intimidate and where to plant landmines. Moreover, this cowardly act can be perpetrated from another country and, after causing death and injuries to innocent civilians, the perpetrators can flee back over the borders again.

*We gained first-hand knowledge of Swapo tactics during our visit to the operational area. We saw for ourselves how difficult it was for the Defence Force to neutralise the Swapo terrorists effectively. The Defence Force nevertheless managed to combat every onslaught of Swapo. They did that because they were motivated and had the support of the majority of the population. There were also people from our own community. We were proud to see the Indian volunteers at the Vanella base in the Caprivi in action.

†At this point I wish to join my other colleagues in saying that conscription is not only objectionable, but also unnecessary. Those who render voluntary service do so with true loyalty and in all sincerity. The recruits from my community whom I have met showed an enthusiasm to be of assistance to their country and their people. Conscription will not be the answer to swell the numbers in the Defence Force. However, better conditions, attractive inducements and the complete elimination of all types of discrimination inside and outside the Defence Force will be the effective solution.

*Unfortunately many South Africans lost their lives in the protracted war. We want to give their next-of-kin the comforting reassurance that they sacrificed their lives in order to bring about peace for all of us.

†I believe that credit must be given where it is due. I think it was Dale Carnegie who said that one should be lavish in one’s praises where praise is due. I would like to give credit to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in conjunction with the hon the Minister of Defence and the Defence Force for the way in which the Namibia issue was handled. The results thus far have been outstanding.

The Defence Force has been handling conflict over a broad front, from the Atlantic Ocean in the west to Umpasha in the east—an area approximately 800 kilometres wide. The insurgents infiltrate in small groups, causing division of our forces. This makes it difficult to counter the effectively. This conflict is against an enemy who has logistical and other support from specialist forces from abroad. This is a war against an enemy who has all the support from the West. Incidentally, this enemy has been recognised by the West as the sole and authentic representative of Namibia. It is good to note that it appears that this position is now changing. Greater impartiality seems to have emerged.

I want to express our joy and pride at the selection of an Indian pilot to serve in the South African Air Force. Candidate officer Eargam-bram is presently at Central Flying School in Dunottar where he is undergoing the ground subject phase. It is expected that his flying training will commence soon. I have ascertained from the Defence Force that Eargambram is a fine student who makes a good impression with his dedication and hard work. I understand that the selection of a person to this position is a strict process. Eargambram is the first Indian to have been selected. I can assure hon members that there will be many more of the same calibre and standing in our community. May I express the wish and desire that all citizens of South Africa, irrespective of class, colour or creed, shall work together for the betterment of our country and our people, with no discrimination of any type against each other, and with the display of respect and dignity that is required to uphold the morality of society.

Mr Chairman, I want to commence by referring to the mysterious letter which appeared in today’s edition of Die Burger and Beeld. The letter carries the title “KP-ma skuil agter Minister Pik Botha”. I want to tell hon members that I have just received a fax from the CP head office. I should like to read it to hon members:

Once again the hon the Minister has not replied to crucial questions which have been put to him, as we have come to know him. I asked him very courteously to address us on the question of the consequences of Resolution 435. I asked him to explain his negligence in not pre-empting the incursion on 31 March by means of a political decision. I also asked him to reply to us on the possible bloodshed and chaos which could take place later this year in South West Africa as a result of the terrorists within it. As happens every year, he evaded his responsibilities and did not reply to us.

He spoke about new arrangements in South West Africa. I want to tell him that it is a complicated plan to get the Swapo soldiers out of the South West Africa haystack. It is an unnecessary problem which could perhaps never be solved. The hon the Minister caused it through his political decisions because he did not intervene before 31 March when the situation was such that he as the political head could have devised a plan to prevent those Swapo murderers from infiltrating on the evening of 31 March. As the fat is in the fire now, I want to tell the hon the Minister in any case that we wish them everything of the best and hope that they will get those people out of there.

As regards the hon member for Pietersburg’s question, the matter has taken a strange turn. After having discussed it for weeks and having put numerous questions on it across the floor of the House, we ultimately have the NP in a corner regarding that matter. The NP MPs who flew there are suddenly a group of South Africans now. The hon the Minister is very friendly and invites the hon member for Pietersburg to coffee so that they can talk. He does this after all this time has elapsed. This is not good enough in our eyes. The hon the Minister allowed the matter to go too far and we ask him to explain it to us in public in the public interest. We are not going to assist in covering up the sins of the NP.

Something deplorable is manifesting itself in politics and that is that the hon the Minister has been cut off so badly from the Defence Force and we have illustrated his incompetence so effectively, that he is sacrificing the Defence Force now in panic to save his own skin. Surely he was the one who could have decided before 31 March that other arrangements should be made when it became clear that Swapo would come in. He is even using an untruth now to save his own skin. He said that I had said that he and the generals had been caught with their pants down while it was absolutely untrue. He is the one who has been made to look a fool by Swapo. He was caught with his pants down and I particularly wanted to know from him why he had not listened to his generals. [Interjections.]

I want to know from the hon the Minister why he does not stand on his own feet instead. If he is unable to, he should not fall back on the Defence Force. He would do better to resign, as we have demanded for so long. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to allegations which were made concerning the case of a certain Brig Johan Deysel, who was alleged to have worked as an agent of the Defence Force for a company called Jalc. He supposedly received certain favours which gave rise to his retirement on early pension without a court-martial. The hon the Minister apparently said that he knew nothing about the matter. I should like him to elaborate on this a little.

The hon the Minister is alleged to have been a passenger on one of Mr Vermaas’s aircraft to Mauritius. It is alleged that he told a newspaper that he had paid his fare himself. He is alleged to have told the Harms Commission that other people had paid for him. I want to know from him today who paid for him, and, if this is true, why he told two stories. [Interjections.]

In conclusion, at the end of the debate on this Vote and with a very difficult year ahead of all of us, the CP wants to take the opportunity to wish the SA Defence Force everything of the best in the coming year. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members are to give the hon member a reasonable chance to make his speech. After all, he is the CP’s chief spokesman on defence. The hon member may proceed.

Our message to the Defence Force is—they know this and have experienced it in practice—that they need never look over their shoulders because the CP is with them.

As regards the hon the Minister. I want to say the following. In spite of our many differences, I want to wish him everything of the best for the coming year. A very difficult year lies ahead and I want to wish him wisdom and strength from Above to carry out his very difficult task. I want to wish all study groups who are present here the best of luck in the coming year. Let us try to do the job in spite of our differences. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, we are quite used to the hon member for Overvaal who starts with his slander politics in this Chamber when we are discussing serious matters of state. I think I must agree with the hon member for Benoni that we should be thankful that it was the hon the Minister who negotiated for peace on South Africa’s behalf, and not the hon member for Overvaal.

Nevertheless he is a man of certain talents. In South West Africa/Namibia he has already proven that he can play the guitar quite well. We also know that he can kick well. The hon the Minister was quite right in saying that he is also an expert on blunder politics.

And what have you got going for you?

A lot more than you have, my friend. [Interjections.]

Do you think so? Show us then!

Mr Chairman, while we are thankful that we were not represented by the hon the Minister for Overvaal, I think at the same time we can be thankful that we were not represented by the shadow Ministers of both Defence and Foreign Affairs of the DP, namely the hon member for Sandton and the hon member for Sea Point. I am sure that the hon member for Sea Point, had he been part of these negotiations, would have availed himself of that modern innovation, the cordless telephone. [Interjections.] Now, whether he would have been on the phone to Don McHenry or to Lusaka is of course a matter of conjecture.

I just want to say to the hon member for Bryanston: “U sal nooit ’n lewe maak as n siener nie.” [Interjections.] Any decisions that were to be made by the negotiators of the DP would of course have to be referred to their national board who would then on the spur of the moment have to reconsider those decisions.

The DP presents itself as an alternative government for South Africa. They suggest that they can run the Defence Force and in fact the country. However, I think many of us doubt whether they can run a bath. [Interjections.] With three hands on the cold tap and three hands on the hot tap, one will probably find that the bath plug has been stolen by Denis Worrall to try to find out in which safe Prog constituency he will stand during the next election. [Interjections.]

Order! I do not want to pull the plug on the hon member but he should come closer to the Defence Vote.

Many speakers in this debate have already raised the question of defence spending and have asked the question whether, now that we have made peace in Namibia, our Defence Budget should not decrease. The idea has been put forward that in future we should have more butter and fewer guns.

There is the popular perception that South Africa spends too much of its Budget on defence, which is seen in some quarters as being equivalent to the maintenance of apartheid. However, when the right parameters are used and we look at defence spending as a percentage of GDP, then South Africa is at the lower end of the international league. Our spending on defence is something like 4,4% of GDP compared with countries like Zambia at 5%, the United Kingdom at 5,2% and the USA at 6,3%. Perhaps it is important to compare global figures of defence spending in order to put South Africa’s position into perspective.

If we look at the 1987 figures converted at today’s exchange rates, South Africa spent a total of R6,68 billion on defence, compared to R64 billion by Japan, R81 billion by the UK and R731 billion by the United States. This means that in total Japan spent roughly 10 times what South Africa spent on defence. Britain spent 13 times more and the United States spent a 122 times more.

It must be remembered, however, that Japan is restricted by its constitution to spending a maximum of 1% of its GDP on defence. It can therefore be argued that South Africa’s economy is far smaller than that of Japan. Britain or the United States and that we also have a far smaller population. However, when figures are calculated on defence spending per capita, then we find that Japan is spending 2,6 times the South African equivalent on defence, Britain is spending 6,05 times per capita and the USA 13 times per capita on defence spending. This means that the average British citizen is paying 6,5 times more for the defence and security of his country than the average South African. Our defence burden can therefore be described as more than modest when compared with other countries, especially when it is realised that those countries are not engaged in any military operations.

The expectation that defence spending will decrease after South Africa’s withdrawal from South West Africa/Namibia needs to be examined more closely. A constriction of the outer perimeter would throw the Defence Force more permanently on the defensive, a military posture requiring the continual deployment of more men and more material, not less. What has been particularly worrying when one looks at the history of events on our north-western boundary, is the speed with which our enemies have been able to deploy the latest state-of-the-art weaponry systems.

It would, therefore, be naive to expect South Africa to accept the status quo of its weaponry systems, and not provide for the future. It is, therefore, logical that nearly 60% of our defence budget is for the Special Defence Account, which is for the procurement and development of modern and sophisticated weaponry. We have to accept that other countries are at present engaged in research and development that would make present day equipment obsolete. It is to be realised that many innovations take up to 10 years to develop. The moneys we are investing today are being spent on our security in the nineties, and the first decade of the next century. The hon the Minister has justly spoken with pride about the achievements of our arms industry. It has always been the philosophy of the Defence Force that soldier protection is paramount. By developing and researching new concepts, we are improving the efficiency of the average serviceman, and increasing the odds against casualties.

It is also important that we develop hardware that has been adapted to the conditions of Africa. One has only to look at a recent picture in the newspapers of a line of Untag vehicles, with their bonnets up and their radiators boiling, to realise the truth of this.

Flat tyres!

The effects of the spin-offs of the arms industry to the South African economy are also to be emphasised. The development of ceramics in the arms industry has led to, for example, the establishment of ceramic water pumps, which are rust-free, in the mining industry. The necessity for high-grade steel in gun barrels has led to a flourishing tool and die industry. It has also influenced something which affects nearly every South African, and that is the shape of the beer can. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have no doubt that the extraordinarily low level of debate by the hon member for Wynberg when he commenced a little earlier must be connected to his paper-thin majority, which will disappear shortly. [Interjections.] One does not need to be a prophet to know that that hon member will certainly not be returning to this House later this year. [Interjections.]

I must also comment on an interjection by the hon the Deputy Minister during a speech made by my colleague, the hon member for Springfield. The hon member for Springfield raised the extraordinarily important question, internationally as well as nationally, of the effect of the electric fence along the border of this country. During his speech he indicated that the death-toll during the previous year could be between 45 and 68, depending on the figures that were quoted. During his speech the hon the Deputy-Minister interjected and said:“Are you soft on security?” I find that a sickening remark, the implications of which are obscene in the international world. [Interjections.] I believe that it is necessary that the hon the Minister clearly indicates to us the implications of the death-toll along that fence. That is what is important! I would want to believe that the hon the Minister would rather want a larger Defence Force contingent patrolling that fence than one unnecessary death. That is the important point about being tough on security. [Interjections.]

Would you volunteer?

I would like to spend the greater bulk of what I have to say on the situation regarding military veterans, especially the recipients of military pensions. I am well aware that the actual administration of military pensions falls under the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development but I am certain that the Defence Force family at large is very much concerned with these matters.

All veterans’ pensions have in the past number of years been made an own affair. These pensions are administered as follows: The House of Assembly, 13 187 persons receiving an amount of R32,7 million; the House of Representatives, 7 098 persons receiving an amount of R17,9 million; and the House of Delegates, 242 persons receiving an amount of R570 000. Black war veterans’ pensions are paid by each of the four provincial administrations, under the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. The figures for those are unavailable at present but I have little doubt that the total sum paid out is well over R50 million.

The military veterans’ associations have requested that this matter be handled by one department. They have indicated that they would prefer it to be the Department of Defence because we have the farcical situation in this country that the matters concerning war veterans from previous wars are being handled on a divided basis.

Military pensions, on the other hand, are paid to persons who were injured or disabled in some way while they were doing military service. Military pensions differ from war veterans’ pensions. A sum of R45 million in military pensions was paid to 11 831 persons.

I want to raise another important point of principle. There is parity for all races. It was granted just over two years ago and we are very pleased about that, but the amount paid out to each individual is based on his educational qualifications. Thus, the maximum amount paid recently to a 100% disabled ex-serviceman holding a three-year degree or its equivalent, is R15 180. One with a matric certificate receives R11 385 and all other cases receive R9 108. This system of paying military pensions according to educational qualifications has roundly and repeatedly been condemned as totally iniquitous by some ex-servicemen’s organisations and by nearly all military observers. I have indicated that I am well aware that this matter is not the direct concern of this hon Minister. However, he must have an interest. I would request the State and especially the hon the Minister to take action on this matter.

There is also an increase in the number of allowances paid to persons suffering from serious disability as a result of taking part in military action. I can quote the figures from the National Health Report. There were seven people with severe disabilities in 1986, 33 in 1987 and 100 in 1988. I have little doubt that these can be directly related to injuries brought about by the conflict both in Angola and in South West Africa/Namibia.

This hon Minister is aware of the problems experienced in integrating disabled Vietnam veterans into society in the USA. I hope he can give us an indication that a comprehensive programme is under way to ensure that disabled South African servicemen—some of whom are already out of hospital, but many of whom are still being treated in hospital—are fully accepted and fully integrated into our society.

Turning from that, this hon Minister has a strategic background and he will know the importance of authoritative texts in any single area. We have had the experience of world strategists studying, for example, the Malayan or the Algerian conflict. I would hope that the SADF will take the necessary action—once the Namibian conflict has been concluded and Namibia is fully independent—to provide an authoritative text on the conflict and how it arose.

Finally, we are extremely pleased with the situation that the hon the Minister has indicated relating to changes in the national service system in that from July 1989 camps will be no longer than 30 days and so forth—there is no need for me to repeat the changes. More than that, I am positive that the business community of South Africa will regard this as one of the life-savers, because in the recent past there have been so many complaints about the call-up system for camps. I must echo that we believe that the committee the hon the Minister appointed to follow the Geldenhuys Committee and look into the national service system, the system of voluntary service and other, differing forms of military service, must take very close cognisance of the economic and other demands of this country.

Mr Chairman, it is appropriate for us to remember today that in actual fact Namibia is not facing a peaceful future because of the military actions of the hon the Minister of Defence and the SA Defence Force and the South West African Defence Force as such.

[Inaudible.]

Peace is near at hand in Namibia because the politicians, particularly the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, succeeded in negotiating a political solution for Namibia which would prevent further loss of life.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to take a question?

I do not have time to answer questions.

[Inaudible ]

Order! The hon member for Lang-laagte has now made too many interjections. He will not make another one. The hon member for Claremont may proceed.

According to information available to me, during their innumerable travels abroad even the hon the Minister of Defence was extremely impressed by the way in which the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was able to achieve the termination of hostilities and an agreement by means of peaceful negotiation. This is something which the SA Defence Force could not achieve in spite of its formidable military strength.

Peace is coming to Namibia because a colonial minority government is withdrawing, all Namibians will enjoy equal franchise on a joint voters’ roll, Namibians will be able to draw up their own constitution, all apartheid legislation will be deleted and, above all. because liberation movements like Swapo need no longer continue the military struggle, because they will now have the opportunity to participate freely in the democratic process in a unitary state. This was something they were denied prior to 1 April of this year.

Those of us living south of the Orange River would do well to learn this lesson from our northern neighbours: The conflict between the South African Government and South African liberation movements like the ANC will, as was the case in Namibia, not be terminated by military force but rather by political initiatives.

As far as the present peace initiative is concerned, I should like to express the hope that in spite of the fact that hostilities broke out after 1 April, and there was tragic loss of life on both sides of the conflict, the path to political independence will be followed to the end, in spite of those persons who are trying to ensure that it fails.

†One can only trust that both the politicians and the militarists in the Government—especially those people around the hon the Minister of Defence with itchy trigger fingers—will learn to accept the hard reality that Swapo commands overwhelming support amongst the Namibian population. Estimates vary from a low 40% to a high 70%. One hopes that they will refrain from the temptation to use the power at their disposal to the political disadvantage of Swapo’s electoral support and that we do not look for excuses when the outcome is announced.

With regard to the renewed outbreak of hostilities after 1 April, I want to raise some points.

Firstly, although Swapo was obviously in the wrong—and I stress that there is no doubt about that as regards their illegally crossing the border from Angola to Namibia—it should be borne in mind that as far as they were concerned, believing that the United Nations had taken over control on 1 April, they were merely returning to their homeland after years in the bush. To them the SADF … [Interjections.] …—hon members must please listen—which was blocking their way, were foreigners from South Africa. That was the perception.

The confusion and the virtually total absence of Untag—which I believe was a major error—was a major contributor to the outbreak of these hostilities.

Secondly, even accepting the conditions which prevail during war time, one has to express one’s horror at the brutal and inhuman way in which the security forces went about throwing bodies of dead Swapo insurgents into mass graves, and the way in which Swapo dead were allowed to lie decomposing in public for days.

Whose side are you on?

Photographs showing Swapo bodies being flung into graves remind one, as Gerald Shaw writes in this morning’s Cape Times, of the way Nazis treated Jews. People remain people and whether they are Black or White, Swapo or not. they are still created by one God and they also have families. I believe they deserve at least a post mortem and a decent burial. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Jeppe can also stop interjecting now. The hon member may proceed.

Thirdly, one has to express one’s deepest concern that, as one independent source put it, so few people—that is Swapo— were being taken prisoner, especially during the first days after 1 April “and that there would appear to be a policy of not taking any further prisoners after allegedly capturing the first two guerillas”. Was a policy decision actually taken to seek and kill, and not to take unnecessary hostages? It is a question that many people have asked.

Fourthly, security force action in the predominantly Swapo-supporting Owambo against Swapo guerilla insurgents has actually been so indiscriminately violent in parts, that local supporters of Swapo in the forthcoming election are too terrified to wear Swapo T-shirts or any other symbol showing support for Swapo, in case they are shot.

Bearing in mind the fact that South Africa had the diplomatic high ground at the beginning when Swapo crossed the border illegally, it should then also be clear that the way the security forces had been operating in the last while has done much to destroy the good image—the best image that South Africa has enjoyed internationally for decades.

One has reason to doubt whether the hon the Minister of Defence kept his colleague the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs informed of his planned actions. It would seem as though the trigger-happy Minister of Defence has all too quickly forgotten the lesson he learnt earlier from the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, that peace is not brought about by military might, but by political and diplomatic initiative.

It is my hope that we will learn the same lesson in South Africa and that we will also look for a political solution and not for a military one as such.

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin by referring to interjections the hon member for Claremont made in respect of my party, interjections concerning the security forces in residential areas.

I stand here today as someone who lives in a Coloured residential area, as someone who is aware of the power struggle between various factions in our areas, as someone who has experienced the violence of those forces, forces that stand for democracy, but do not respect the discipline of democracy. I therefore want to say that we in the LP do not object when the Police or the Defence Force come into our areas to protect people and their property. [Interjections.] Members of our community have already expressed their opinions in this regard on previous occasions, and let me say today that the LP will not allow radical elements to outlaw us in our own communities. Therefore we will not permit our security forces on the border to be outlawed either.

I think hon members of Parliament should support our men at the border posts at this time when South Africa is facing challenges. We must not forget that it was only yesterday that we were not welcome in the Security Council’s sittings or at debates in which South Africa was being discussed. We must not forget that it is now suddenly being suggested that we have a right to certain things. What double standards are being applied in our case? Have we forgotten about the double standards the Western World applies to South Africa? We fought in wars. Where were those people when they had to assist their allies in that war? At this time when South Africa is facing challenges, we must not break down the morale of our men on the border. We must support them. They are the narrow line between the threats and our safety here in South Africa on the one hand, and the breakdown of order in this country on the other.

With regard to the idea that has been expressed about our not having maintained control over the security of our territory, I want to say that the South African authorities have abided by the stipulations of the negotiations. We are only too grateful today that our Defence Force did so. That is what is striking here: They remained faithful to the negotiations. If we want to negotiate about the future of South Africa and we are unable to abide by the stipulations of the negotiations, what does our word mean, and what do the negotiations themselves mean? [Interjections.]

We in South Africa should not, from this platform, provide people with ammunition to undertake further disinvestment against our country. [Interjections.] We must not allow people any further opportunities to attack us and run us down. We are the last bastion of discipline in this country. We must be proud of the efforts being made here. We must go further and bring the South West Africa/Namibia affair to its logical conclusion, so that we can show the world that we are bringing freedom to Southern Africa. Where are the real leaders of the Western World in regard to the question of Namibia? Where are they in regard to Southern Africa? Where are they, even after were given the facts at the time of the Lancaster House Agreement? Where were they when there was a further collapse of the same democracies and governments? Namibia and rest of Africa must serve as a lesson to us to proceed carefully in respect of our country, our safety and our security.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after a good friend of the SA Defence Force, or rather of our security forces. The hon dealt very well with the hon member for Claremont, who is an apologist for Swapo. It seems to me the hon members of the DP are at the moment engaged in a discussion to determine whether the hon member for Claremont has been admitted to the DP or not. However, we shall come to that later. I do not take it amiss of them for doing so, because I would also have wondered since I am astonished at the way in which the executive of the DP takes decisions. One day they take this kind of decision, and the next day another kind.

The hon member for Durban Central referred to aspects I discussed yesterday in respect of the East-West regrouping, and certain relations which may flow from that. Perhaps it would be a good thing if I add a little here and there from a security point of view. For that reason I now want to make a few observations about dialogue with the Russians, seem from a security perspective.

We shall talk to the Russians about Southern Africa. During the past few months we have been doing so in any case in connection with South-Western Africa. The discussions in this connection were concerned with South Africa’s interests and the interests of our region. As regards our internal politics, however, the Soviet Union has no role to play, just as we have no role to play in its internal politics. The Soviet Union, as a one-party autocratic system, has no meaningful contribution to make to help broaden democracy here in the Republic of South Africa. Consequently there are clearly demarcated limits to discussion.

As regards possible trade, one does not condone a country’s system or ideology by selling or buying. In any event, South Africa trades with many countries that differ with us politically and ideologically. I should like to tell the hon member that I am certain that my colleague, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, will express his opinion in this connection from a diplomatic and political point of view when his Vote is being discussed. To tell the truth, I think he has already given an indication in this connection.

Since I made my last round of thanks, more speakers have made contributions and I should like to refer to them.

On the NP side I want to thank the hon member for Brentwood for the fine sentiments he expressed in respect of the SA Defence Force. That hon member touched on a very important topic here when he spoke about the youth and the Defence Force, about the dependence of our country’s security on the well-motivated youth of our country. I also want to thank him for the moving experience of which he afforded us a glimpse, in respect of the parent that has a child in the operational area.

I also want to thank the hon member for Klip River, who point the precise lack of an alternative on the part of the CP for South Africa and South West Africa.

The hon member for Benoni rubbed salt even deeper into the wounds than have been done earlier today.

I also want to thank the hon member for Wynberg for his supplementary and positive observations on financial control and money matters.

†I want to thank the hon member for the comparison he drew between various countries by referring to countries that were not involved in any military operations showing their defence expense percentages against that of South Africa. I thank him very much for doing that.

*Furthermore there is the DP side, and here I just want to say that they always make me think that DP stands for “Deurmekaar Party”.

†I thank the hon member for Bryanston for his supportive remarks on nature conservation. I really mean that as I share this interest with him. I have noted his suggestions with interest and I wish to point out that we have approved eight posts for ecological management within the SADF, as that should improve the situation. I heard what the hon member said about security which, if I may, I will formulate as follows: The DP is not tough on security. [Interjections.]

*I want to tell the hon member for Overvaal that I think I have replied to all his questions, particularly if the hon member would read what I have said today in respect of South West Africa. I know that the hon member had a briefing on 18 April and I hear that the hon member appreciated it and was brought completely up to date.

I must say it seems to me as though there are only two groupings that are unhappy about Resolution 435 and are dissatisfied with the negotiations, and they are the hon member and Swapo, because the protests came from them. [Interjections.]

The hon member referred to the affairs of the Harms Commission, and I want to reply to him very objectively and factually. I testified before the Harms Commission under oath about my visit to Mauritius. The hon member can go and read the report. The terms of reference of the Harms Commission, as the hon member has quite probably read in the newspapers, were extended. Consequently the legal representatives of my department have informed me that matters that may have had something to do with Brig Deyzel will be dealt with there.

†The hon member for Actonville spoke with enthusiasm and praised the SADF. I would like to thank him for being so positive.

The hon member for Pinetown raised the issue of pensions for military veterans. I have noted the hon member’s plea in this regard and again I will follow this up. I can assure the hon member that there are discussions going on between the various departments.

*This brings me to the last member who participated in the debate, the hon member for Claremont. I have never in this Chamber heard the hon member for Claremont say a word in anger about the enemies of South Africa, nor have I ever heard him say a good word about the security forces of our country, whether it was the SA Police or the security forces. [Interjections.] I do not want to say that the hon member is a enemy of the security forces, but he is definitely not a friend of the security forces of South Africa.

Today the hon member raised certain aspects. The hon said that he had been astounded at the negotiations of my colleague, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I want to tell the hon member that I was astounded because the hon Minister had been so excellent and outstanding. South Africa should be proud of such a man.

What did he mean by that?

I do not know what the hon member meant by that, because all his words in respect of everything that is good in South Africa are distorted.

I want to go further than that. When we had at one stage reached a breaking point, I averted that breaking point. So the hon member must not come here with that rubbish and try to sow suspicion between my colleague and I. The hon member is not going to succeed in doing that because, as I said this morning, we are a team with a common purpose and we work—the hon member will not understand this—for the future for South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon member again tried to speak volumes about the security forces in respect of a mass burial. I want to tell the hon member about the situation, because it seems to me he does not want to hear about it. Nine South West African policemen went in after a horde of terrorists, and after two hours those nine made contact. Two or three of the policemen were wounded, but many Swapo people were shot dead because our police shoot well. When the helicopter came in to evacuate the medical cases, the enemy began to fire on the helicopter. The battle was won after that action by Swapol.

What were they supposed to do with these corpses which were lying in the sun and decomposing rapidly? I shall tell the hon member what they did. They dug a mass grave and put these people into it to prevent a health hazard.

Now I want to ask the hon member a question. He is, after all, so wise here in these benches, but never goes anywhere near the operational area, has never done any national service and in fact refuses to do national service. What would the hon member have done under those circumstances? I want to go further than that. With this tremendous infiltration which occurred, there were inadequate cooling facilities at the hospitals to deal with the dead bodies.

No, but the hon member will always come along here and put the blame on the security forces. The hon member is the person I referred to this afternoon, who stirs up propaganda against South Africa. He is not a South African. [Interjections.]

I want to go further. The hon member is after all a man who always has practical experiences. What happened here yesterday, what the hon member for Bishop Lavis and the hon member for Bonteheuwel did to the hon member, was I think to cut the hon member down to size. They are men with practical experience, men who know what they are talking about.

If that had happened to me, I would not even have made an application to another party; I would have packed my bags and left. But I want to tell the hon member that that is typical of him, because his political history has been to jump from the one party to the other.

From the one leader to the other.

Yes, from one leader to the next. I should like to take a leaf out of the book of a former Prime Minister and quote one of his remarks. He said this about a person, and I am applying it to the hon member for Claremont:

That is precisely what the hon member is doing to the DP. [Interjections.] I should now like to ask the DP what decision they arrived at this afternoon in regard to the hon member for Claremont. After all, the DP met only half an hour ago, so tell us! [Interjections.]

We have come to the end of the discussion of this Vote. I think it was a historic occasion. It may possibly have been the last discussion of a Defence Force Vote with our present, respected State President as the supreme commander of our country’s armed forces. This is not a moment of departure now. but a few words of sincere tribute are appropriate. I want to thank the hon member for Benoni for the words he spoke in this connection this afternoon.

In South Africa many monuments and beacons have been erected to our hon State President. History will be the judge. The development in South Africa in the sphere of recognition of human dignity is only one such monument, but what towers over all the rest is that he was the father of the modern SA Defence Force and Armscor. It is he who prepared the SA Defence Force to face up to and deal with any contingency. It is his farsightedness which made of Armscor the giant and force it is today. He was Minister of Defence for 14 years. This made him the doyen of the Ministers of Defence of leading Western countries. Today I am not talking about the innovations and the dynamism which he introduced into the SA Defence Force and Armscor, but I think it is an appropriate occasion to pay tribute to him for the preparedness, the security and the respect which we compel in 1989.

I conclude with a quotation from a speech which he made on 29 April 1982 in Pietersburg, and which I believe ought to be a guiding principle for South Africa in our time. P W Botha said:

The SA Defence Force and Armscor say thank you to the hon the State President. I want to thank all the hon members who participated in the discussion of this Vote. I think this is a good time to adjourn so that we can spend a pleasant weekend.

Mr Chairman, I thought it fit to make a very important statement in the early stages of this debate concerning the price of bread.

The Government has voted a further R35 million for the subsidisation of bread during the financial year which commenced on 1 April 1989. With a view to the gradual phasing out of the bread subsidy only R80 million was originally made available for the present financial year. In view of the difficult economic conditions prevailing at present the Government has, however, decided to increase this amount to R115 million. At the beginning of the present wheat season in November 1988—that was in the previous financial year—the Wheat Board and the milling and baking industries also made a sizeable amount available for the subsidisation of bread. In view of the record wheat crop and the accompanying financial implications for the board it is at this stage unfortunately not possible for the board to make a further contribution to the bread subsidy.

Due to cost increases in the milling and baking industries, especially higher salaries, wages, fuel prices and interest rates, a price increase of 5c per white loaf and 7c per brown loaf is now unavoidable. With effect from Monday 24 April 1989 the price of white bread will therefore be 90c and that of brown bread 76c per loaf. [Interjections.] If the increase were to be postponed it would result in bigger increases at a later stage.

I would also like to point out that if the additional R35 million had not been voted the price of brown bread would have had to be increased by 11c per loaf—in the order of more than 15%. At the new prices no subsidy will be payable on white bread and the total amount of R115 million allocated will be utilized to subsidise brown bread. The consumption of brown bread presently constitutes approximately 60% of the total sales of standard bread.

Representations were received from the distribution trade to increase the retail margin which has not been adjusted since 1 October 1987. Although I have high regard for the important service that is rendered I have decided, after careful consideration, not to accede to their request. Furthermore, a thorough investigation is being conducted to find alternative methods by which more effective food aid can be rendered to the poor. This aspect is also being considered by a committee which was appointed last year under the chairmanship of Prof D J G Smith to investigate a food and nutrition strategy for the Republic of South Africa.

*At this stage I should like to elaborate on this subject. We have reached a stage at which we can no longer continue with our method of bread and food subsidies. Exactly what is the situation as far as the bread subsidy is concerned? Sixty per cent of subsidised bread is brown bread. Bread is eaten by everyone. The effect of the bread subsidy is, therefore, that rich people who can really afford it, are eating subsidised bread. Thus the basic principle is wrong and the poor who need it, should be helped. The Smith Committee was appointed to try to identify specific communities according to what bread and food assistance could be given to them instead of establishing a horizontal subsidy network for staple foods.

There is another very important aspect. I think the consumers in South Africa—I am speaking about all consumers, and specifically those who have to stretch their rand for food—should start looking around them. At the moment we have a potato surplus of approximately 8 million pockets. This is something we shall have to discuss in today’s debate. Good quality potatoes are at present being sold in the PWV area for R3,50 or even less per pocket. I want to appeal to the consumers of South Africa to make use of opportunities when buying food and to see which products they can get at bargain prices. Potatoes at R3,00 a pocket are a bargain. [Interjections.]

For this reason it is also extremely important to investigate the entire system of food subsidies in order to help the poor to make better use of food benefits and allocations from the State. I trust that we can debate this matter further in this Committee.

Mr Chairman, I think this Committee took cognisance with great interest of the announcement by the hon the Minister. My brief comment is that the increase in the price of bread does not in any case mean an increase in real terms. If a loaf of bread which costs 90 cents is going to cost five cents more, in real terms this is not really an increase.

It is apparent from the Budget Speech of the hon the Minister of Finance that through expert management the South African economy has succeeded in increasing the percentage change in the GDP from 0,5% in 1986 to more than 3% in real terms in 1988. However, a further fact—this is important—is that the surplus on the current account of the balance of payments has declined fairly drastically during the past few years. Linder normal circumstances even a decline to a negative rate would have been acceptable.

Economic punitive measures, by our trading partners as well, necessitate South Africa obtaining its capital requirements—this is important for agriculture—from surpluses on the current account of the balance of payments as well. All industries which can be net earners of foreign exchange in these oppressive economic conditions must be assisted to develop to the optimum. It is well known that agriculture in South Africa is an earner of foreign exchange. It is so much of an earner of foreign exchange that more than R3 billion per year in foreign exchange has been earned during the past two years by agricultural exports. Virtually all branches of agriculture which concentrate on exports experienced fairly favourable conditions during the past year for a variety of reasons. Prices achieved by wool, mohair, canned fruit and deciduous fruit allowed producers in these branches to continue with production and to earn valuable foreign exchange for South Africa.

An overall view of the financial position of the agricultural sector brings to light that during 1988 agriculture was relatively successful. The gross income, for example, rose from R13 billion to R15 billion and farming profits rose by 18,6% in one year. Perhaps a more significant figure is real farming profits which rose by 25,1% between 1983 and 1988. This places farming on the same profit levels as in the favourable late seventies but—this is important—I think the overall view of the financial position of the agricultural sector conceals specific problems in certain branches.

Now the question is what role these hard-pressed branches of farming play in the South African economy, particularly when these branches are the sources of the staple foods of large numbers of the South African population. In my opinion the wheat industry, for example, as a potential earner of foreign exchange, must get recognition for this. The question is in what way this recognition must be given. In this connection I would recommend that we consider schemes such as those implemented by other countries, for example Israel, which encourages agricultural exports in order to earn foreign exchange.

I am aware of the international trend to scale down agricultural subsidisation in terms of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The South African economy as a whole, and certain branches of agriculture as well, are in an oppressed state and it may be essential in our own interests to introduce special measures which may be in conflict with the insistence on less agricultural subsidisation.

Personally I consider it to be in the interests of South Africa at present, firstly with regard to the wheat industry, that a surplus position should be accepted as being preferable to a shortage. Secondly, I consider it in the interests of South Africa that export losses on wheat should still be recognised as a profit in foreign exchange. As far as I am concerned, therefore, there is therefore justification for a standpoint that in certain circumstances the State must consider it to be in the interests of the country to make good these export losses from the Treasury.

Thirdly, thorough account must be taken of the fact that wheat production is the logical alternative for many maize farmers who are curtailing the cultivation of maize for financial reasons. Two thirds of the available agricultural land is utilised by this industry and a small percentage change-over from the cultivation of maize to wheat, but also to other industries such as dairy, will give rise to surpluses within these industries which will be difficult to handle. I therefore want to argue that it is in the interests of the wheat farmer, meat farmer, dairy farmer and in the final analysis also in the interests of the consumer that urgent attention be given to the debt position in the maize industry.

I submit that the maize industry will be hard-pressed to bear the burden of the shortage of more than R400 million in its stabilisation fund without this eventually reflecting very adversely on the producer price of maize. For the sake of stability in the maize as well as the wheat, dairy and meat industries, the Government will urgently have to address this problem of a too large debt burden in the maize industry.

I want to come back to the wheat industry. Because bread is the staple food of many South Africans, the wheat industry must be viewed and handled as a strategically sensitive industry. This also means that as long as the price of bread is determined by way of a Government decision, the price will be such that the consumer will be able to afford it.

However, the price must also be such that the producers of wheat are not forced out of the industry by a too low price. I am of the opinion that the present producer price of wheat is already signalling a decrease in wheat production in South Africa in the foreseeable future. A producer price for wheat which will ensure continued, adequate production of wheat, and a bread price which the poorer sector of the South Africa population will be able to afford, will not always be feasible simultaneously. In such circumstances, and here I want to agree with what the hon the Minister said in his introductory speech, direct food aid to a target group of needy persons only will have to receive the urgent attention of the Government.

As a factor in the determining of the producer price of wheat the bread price can be adjusted in such a way that wheat production in South Africa can be maintained at a favourable level. In this connection it must be taken into account that from October 1984 to September 1988 a total of 368 000 tons of wheat had to be exported. However, in the same period, in 1986, 312 000 tons of wheat had to be imported. For that reason I submit that the production and the consumption of wheat has already been in a critical balance during the past few years. The discouraging of production by a decline in the real wheat price can therefore give rise to shortages which will be prejudicial to the farmer, the consumer and the country as a whole.

In conclusion I want to say that I can foresee that if the State were to give food aid to a target group of needy persons, the bread price could be determined by the leaders in the wheat industry, with the retention of the present marketing system.

Mr Chairman, the LP, which is going to determine the future of our country, is striving to develop a political system in this beautiful country in which all citizens of South Africa will be treated fairly and equally.

It is a proven fact that agriculture is extremely important to the development and the stability of the South African economy as a whole. It is therefore absolutely essential that all the restrictive measures that inhibit Brown farmers should be repealed. Of the main causes and problems that prevent a commercial farming culture to develop out of the Brown population, the following are important, namely a lack of land tenure, especially high-potential land; the traditional acceptance that our people should play a subordinate role, also in agriculture; and a lack of finance. In spite of the fact that the Erica Theron Commission, which was appointed by the Government, recommended long ago that we should be allowed to purchase agricultural land without a permit anywhere in the Republic, these discriminating measures have not yet been removed from the Statute Book.

The crux of the matter is that White immigrants, who in many cases have no goodwill towards South Africa, can purchase farms and establish themselves there. We were created by God, and I wish to state frankly today that we are not lepers. We were born in this country and therefore we should have the right to farm wherever we wish. [Interjections.]

Order! The fact that the hon member who is speaking is clearly audible to the presiding officer still does not justify other hon members conversing aloud. The hon member for Dyssels-dorp may proceed.

The hon the State President said the following on 4 November 1979 at the NP congress in Stellenbosch: “Ons moet bereid wees om uitgediende gebruike en beper-kings te verwyder.” On 29 April 1980 the hon the State President said in the House of Assembly: “Diskriminasie is wanneer daar so opgetree word dat een mens teenoor ’n ander mens veronreg word”. Although the hon the State President said during the Administrators’ Conference held in Durban on 29 September 1982 that offending and unnecessary discriminatory measures should be removed, a permit system is still being applied today in regard to land tenure. Why cannot Brown farmers share the same privileges as White farmers? Why is there discrimination between farmers based on skin colour? We do not hate our White brothers, but we will never forget the injustice they have done to us. Furthermore it is a Christian principle that we should love our neighbours as ourselves.

Sanctions against our agricultural products have a ripple effect that leads to unemployment and poverty. Today I therefore wish sharply to condemn the prophets of doom like Bishop Tutu, Alan Boesak and Jesse Jackson. I also wish to make an appeal to the overseas countries not to impose any further sanctions on our agricultural products, because the fate of my people, who still exist in a subculture of poverty, is aggravated by sanctions.

I am glad that the boycott demands of Tutu and Jesse Jackson against South Africa have been rejected by the Bank of the USA. I also took note with appreciation that the Bank of the USA appreciates the realities in our country. Sanctions are also being applied to South Africa because in this country there is discrimination against people based on skin colour, which broaches the whole question of human dignity, freedom and justice.

Our country’s policy of apartheid is also one of the causes of sanctions. All apartheid legislation should therefore be repealed. In the constituency which I represent thousands of people depend on the ostrich industry. I therefore wish to make a serious appeal to America and Germany in particular, for the sake of our people, not to impose any further sanctions on any ostrich products. Furthermore I wish sharply to condemn organisations that organise boycotts against our agricultural products. These revolutionary forces, especially overseas, that organise boycotts against our agricultural products, are harming our people.

The biggest decrease in the amount granted to the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing in the 1989-90 financial year refers to bread subsidies. The LP condemns the increase of five cents on white bread and seven cents on brown bread from Monday, 24 April 1989 as announced by the Government.

It is an irrefutable fact that many of our people, especially in the rural areas, still live in a subculture of poverty, and bread is their staple food. In our country there are many people who have too little and too few people who have too much. The Government should therefore reconsider its announcement in connection with the increase of the bread price as from Monday.

Giving food to destitute people is a biblical command and the Bible also tells us we will always have the poor with us and when we wish to, we could do good to them. I therefore make a strong appeal to the Government to help our people who, because of their poverty, will not be able to pay these high bread prices.

Presently the wrong people in South Africa are being assisted with subsidies. I wish to quote briefly from chapter 12 of the annual report in which the following is said on page 47:

The time has come for the Government to help fewer farmers in the agricultural industry. They should rather consider a better subsidisation of food assistance.

Why can we not, by means of food assistance, help people who are still caught up in the evil cycle of poverty? [Interjections.] I wish to point out to the hon member for Matroosfontein that the members of Parliament can afford the high bread price, but my people outside, whom I represent in Parliament, will not be able to afford it.

Furthermore I wish to know whether the amount of R6,9 million which Nampo has made available through the Maize Board to the Agricultural Research Account of the Department of Agriculture and Water Affairs is also going to be used for research in connection with the profitability of the maize industry, seeing that the export losses of maize are so high?

Furthermore I am concerned about the gap between the maize price for the producer and for the consumer. I think the continued existence of the maize industry depends on the successful reduction of the price gap.

Our wheat farmers, especially in the Swartland, would also have to learn to incorporate an industry such as cattle farming into their farming. These farmers will definitely have to diversify if they wish to survive.

On 9 October 1987 the hon the State President said the following at the Boskop Training Centre in Potchefstroom:

Until a few years ago the Brown person’s place in agriculture was limited to that of the ordinary farm worker in the service of the White farmers. Even today a large percentage of these people are forced to subsist under critical conditions. In the mentioned instances the farm worker concerned has no other choice but to exist on their meagre wages which are not sufficient to keep body and soul together. Mechanisation in agriculture, rising input costs and a decreasing profit margin are among the most important factors that have contributed to the fact that organised agriculture has realised that the lot of the farm workers should be improved. Better living conditions would then contribute to creating a happy work force with a much higher productivity. Further advantages would be achieved in that the farm worker would then take better care of the farmer’s expensive implements, equipment and facilities that have been acquired at great cost. One must grant that for many years a number of farmers have for humanitarian reasons and not for higher productivity, looked after their workers very well. During the past decade especially large-scale developments have taken place in the agricultural field, especially in respect of the total upliftment—social, welfare and economic—of the ordinary farm worker. A lot has been achieved during the past few years … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in the first place I would like to compliment the hon member for Dysselsdorp on his very positive speech, some aspects of which I shall be dealing with during my own speech.

I wish to thank the Whips of the parties for having agreed to give me this opportunity of speaking early in the debate. I ask to be excused if I am not present when the hon the Minister or his Deputy replies to the debate. I shall return at approximately 14h30.

I have listened with interest to the hon the Minister’s announcement with regard to the price of bread and I think this is possibly one of those bitter pills which will have to be swallowed. However. I was interested to hear that the total R150 million subsidy is being allocated to brown bread. Generally speaking it is accepted throughout the world that subsidisation is not the best means of, shall we say, making products available to the consumer. I believe one has to accept this but I am only sorry that a portion of the 1% increase in GST could not have found its way towards a greater subsidisation of bread. However, I also noted with considerable interest that the hon the Minister had declined to increase the retailers’ margin.

What the hon the Minister said with regard to shopping around and looking for alternative commodities is to my mind very relevant— particularly bearing in mind, as he indicated, the price of potatoes which is almost a staple food at the present time.

During the past year the hon the Minister and his Deputy have repeatedly warned the farmers of South Africa to become more market orientated and to base their production strategies on the market potential of the product. This is the main theme I wish to adopt during this debate.

It appears that the Marketing Act is being quietly side-lined by the Government. I wish to ask the hon the Minister to give this Committee an indication as to how he sees the future role of marketing boards, which are the backbone of the Marketing Act. I am aware that the Marketing Council has conducted numerous investigations over recent years but its findings have not always been made public.

It has been apparent that steps have been initiated from time to time to deregulate certain aspects of the agricultural industry. I think in particular of the easing of control in the meat and dairy industries where the price-fixing formula has been substantially modified. One also appreciates that, from a practical point of view, market forces must always be a factor which has a relevance to production trends and that this aspect must always be kept in mind.

However, there now appears to be an anomaly in regard to the overall application of the Marketing Act where the control of grain products, for example, is, for want of a better word, being tightened, while on the other hand deregulation has taken place to such a degree that the justification for the continued existence of certain control boards handling other products is now questionable. In this regard one must bear in mind that it is the producer who is called upon to finance control boards. One accepts the fact that this is probably a case of horses for courses, but at the same time I feel that the time has come for the hon the Minister to indicate to this Committee the degree to which he intends to modify the application of the Marketing Act to give effect to his concept of bringing the prices of agricultural products more into line with market forces.

I want to warn that the critics of the marketing board system should not lose sight of the fact that the boards have for the past fifty years played a major role in stabilising the agricultural industry as a whole, and have at the same time ensured that consumers are neither exploited nor subjected to shortages of essential foodstuffs.

It is also worth noting that the effect of deregulating the marketing functions of certain boards has already resulted in a widening of the gap between the prices received by the producer and those by the consumer. As I see it, there must be no question of implementing a deregulation policy which could have the effect of destabilising an industry which is of such profound importance to the whole population of this country. As I see it too, one of the main solutions lies in the ability to adopt and improve existing marketing techniques by improving the basis on which the distribution of food in this country is effected.

I was pleased to learn that the hon the Minister has acceded to the request of the red meat producers’ organisation to appoint a committee to investigate certain aspects of the meat industry. I wish to impress upon the hon the Minister that he should not pack the commission with appointees who in any way have an interest in the industry. This has been the case in the past and it has given rise to wide criticism regarding the impartiality of such commissions. I want to stress that interested parties should all submit their representations in a prescribed manner and should not be put in a position where, metaphorically speaking, they sit in judgement on themselves.

I wish to refer to a matter which I raised last year and which the hon member for Dysselsdorp also referred to in his speech. That is the question of the relationship between the farmer and his employee. I do so in the light of the numerous questions that have been submitted regarding the release of the report of the Manpower Commission relative to domestic and farm workers. I wish to refer in particular to the farm employees who with their families are accommodated on the farms where they work. I want to warn that if and when the report is finally released it must be accompanied by an assessment report of all implications involved in regard to facilities provided by the farmer for his employees and their families. For those who are for ever criticising the fact that this report has not been released yet, I must point out that it is seldom appreciated that the agricultural sector bears a social responsibility which would otherwise fall on the shoulders of the State. Let me remind this committee that it must not underestimate the strong bonds that exist between so many farmers and their employees. It is a very special relationship and so often one that has been passed from generation to generation. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, when a raindrop strikes the soil some of that soil is dislodged in a minute explosion. When enough raindrops collect for water to run off the surface, soil is also detached as water runs downhill. Unlike the action of a single raindrop, run-off water transports some of that loose soil and deposits it somewhere else.

Furthermore, water rarely runs downhill in a uniform sheet, but wriggles into paths of least resistance cutting little channels or rills in the soil. Inside the rill the water flows with increased energy, cutting channels deeper and deeper.

The familiar, even mundane, effects of rainstorms on soil are a matter of intense interest to scientists and farmers. They share a deep commitment to the specific goal of reducing erosion on agricultural and other important lands.

The sugar industry has discovered a way to make conservation tillage more efficient. Sloping lands with more than a 20 degree slope must not be ploughed. The field that needs to be renewed is harvested early in the season. About 8 to 10 weeks after harvest the shoots are about half a metre in height. This shoot is killed with a contact herbicide and a new crop is planted between the residue to provide a cover. By using this method the crop is renewed with the least amount of soil disturbance, thus reducing the effects of raindrops and in turn soil erosion.

In view of the Government’s plan to ban the use of hormonal herbicides sugar farmers will not be able to practice this system of tillage.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon member if he has satisfied himself with regard to the chemicals he is talking about, because there is no ban on the chemical that is used in killing the crop. No hormonal herbicides are being used in that …

Mr Chairman, I have newspaper cuttings which say so. The proposed ban comes before a court battle between international chemical giants and the Natal Fresh Produce Growers Association, which has applied for a Supreme Court interdict to ban the use, distribution, formulation and manufacture of all hormonal herbicides.

The effects of air pollution on agricultural crops and vegetation can be devastating. Prof Lawrence D Moore, head of the Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Service at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in the USA, recently paid a visit to South Africa. Prof Moore travelled extensively through South Africa and he noticed spots on the tobacco leaves in the Brits district that were consistent with air pollution symptoms on tobacco crops in the USA. He also saw sulphur dioxide burns on roses and beans, specially soy beans, that were growing near coal-burning power stations. On the Cape Flats he noticed early responses to pollution where one plant died while the one next to it managed to remain healthy. This he attributed to the fact that some plants have a greater genetic resistance to the ravages of pollution.

He noticed signs that the forests in the Sabie region are beginning to be affected by pollution and cautioned that we may permanently lose indigenous species. According to Prof Moore the indigenous plants of the Kruger National Park may be damaged, or even destroyed, by a nearby paper mill. The indigenous plants of the Cape are also at risk of being destroyed by air pollution. Air pollution can be divided into two categories—that is visible particles and invisible gases.

The invisible gases emitted from South African power-stations are high in organic acids, nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide. We have the biggest coal-burning power station in the world and it is a fallacy to think that high stacks, as used at our power stations and at Sasol, will solve the problem. What goes up must come down somewhere—even if it is hundreds of kilometres away. High stacks reduce the local problem but increase the distant problem.

Prof Moore says the concentration of these gases in certain areas of South Africa are now high enough to cause great concern. Ozone is a naturally occurring substance in the air, but at increased concentrations it is toxic to humans, animals and plants. Ozone is thought to be formed by the action of sunlight on oxygen in the presence of impurities.

Acid rain as such may not directly affect plants, but it is the combination of ozone and sulphur dioxide, or each by itself, that penetrates the plants and causes problems. Acid rain leaches out the magnesium from trees and other plants and releases aluminium in the soil which causes stress in vegetation. Air pollution has the following effects on plants: It reduces growth; alters the product quality; causes less plant vigour; alters the enzyme activities; alters the metabolism; reduces photosynthesis; causes changes in plant communities and ecosystems; and increases severity of virus and fungus attacks because of lower resistance.

Plants weakened by air pollution have poor growth and yield and poor resistance to drought. They are eventually destroyed by diseases, fungus and insects because of lower resistance. The economic implications of this insidious attack on our crops are therefore vast. Human and animal health are also threatened. What do we do to overcome this threat? The answer is a Government ban on the use of hormonal herbicides. Yet we do not control vehicle emissions. We dare not close down industries that burn coal or oil, and we have a major unsolved problem in domestic smoke from Black townships and burning coal dumps.

I am not suggesting that herbicides must not be banned. However, what I am saying is that the Government should not impose a blanket ban because there are other farmers and organisations who are opposed to the ban on herbicides for weed control.

Mr Chairman, I should like to attempt to illustrate the situation in which agriculture finds itself, as well as the basic causes of the problems in agriculture, with reference to a practical example. It is a practical example which is obviously known to the hon the Minister and was also brought to my attention, viz the Waterval River Irrigation Board in the North-Eastern Transvaal.

The position with regard to this irrigation area is that the Department of Water Affairs constructed the Buffelskloof Dam approximately 20 years ago. The dam’s capacity is 5,3 million cubic metres. There are eight earthen furrows or canals which distribute the water. Although there had always been enough water, it became clear during the 1983 drought that that was no longer the case. After an investigation it was found that the water loss in the earthen furrows was 66%.

The board then considered the possibility of constructing a new additional dam five kilometres upstream which would supply an additional 15 million cubic metres of water. In other words it would increase the capacity of the scheme fourfold. In 1986 the estimated cost of the project was R3,5 million. A further investigation was undertaken into the possibility of replacing the earthen furrows with a system which combined a cement canal and a pipeline, instead of building a dam. The investigation was undertaken and in 1986 the cost of this system was estimated at R2,6 million. The board decided to go ahead with the scheme.

The Department of Water Affairs was approached and the project was approved. They then started drawing up the design and preparing the tender documents etc. Then the irrigation board was advised to apply to the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply instead of the Department of Water Affairs. That was done in September 1986. A year later, in 1987, the application was approved.

On 13 June 1987 tenders were called for and an agreement was reached with the lowest tenderer. It was agreed that he would hold his tender in abeyance for a while which he did for 20 months. In February 1989 the board was informed that they would no longer receive a Ioan from the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply, but that they had to apply for a loan from the Land Bank at the normal rates—obviously the Land Bank offered less favourable conditions. There would be no subsidy, except for the one which was granted for the drawing up of the original design.

The result was that the cost would be increased by 50% for the users of and participants in the irrigation scheme and that inflation would increase the cost by another 35%. [Interjections.] I am citing an example in agriculture. After all these events, the board came to a conclusion. The hon the Minister received a letter from the board’s chairman of which I have a copy. It is not an incriminating letter. I did not get it from the chairman or one of the board members. It merely illustrates the situation, however.

They say the delays were probably a blessing in disguise because alternative financing after the commencement of the scheme would have been disastrous due to the increased costs. They even said that it was probably too late to start again because of the increased tender prices and the narrowing of the profit margin in the farming industry. This is a typical example of what is happening in agriculture. The chairman of the board, who is also an engineer, wrote this letter and asked the hon the Minister for his advice.

The basic fact here is that it is a blessing in disguise that development did not take place. It is a fact that we have to face. South Africa has reached the stage where we have to admit that it does not pay to develop. It does not pay to develop due to the fact that the development costs are too high and the farmers’ profit margin is too small. It has shrunk too much—they cannot afford it. In this case an additional factor had to be considered, namely the source of the finance. This source changed and the interest rate that had to be paid, consequently became an additional factor. The two main causes of agriculture’s problems are therefore the increased production costs due to inflation and the increased interest rates with the consequent diminished profit margin.

The hon member for Fauresmith tried to prove that profits were higher. The years he indicated, however, were in the middle of the drought. Then it is quite possible to make that kind of calculation. However, I want to tell him that he is farming in a different spot to where the average South African farmer is farming, if he is of the opinion that the profit margin is rising. I do not want to blame him for that, however, because he said other positive things. The figure he mentioned, however, is not a true reflection of the situation.

[Inaudible ]

I shall quote other figures to him. As an example we can look at the indexes published by the Department of Agriculture. In 1980 the volume for agricultural production was 100. In 1987 it was also 100. This was obviously mainly due to the drought. When circumstances change, production can increase. For the sake of argument, however, the production volume remained constant during those seven years. The drought certainly played a part by preventing an increase in production. When it rains again, the volume for agricultural production will rise.

Let us also look at the other producers’ prices for 1975. The combined index for the agricultural producers’ price was 100 for that year and by 1986 it had increased to 341. In 1975 the figure for all farming requirements was also 100, but in 1986 it was not 341, but 467. That is the figure for the means of production. In 1987 this figure was 520. That is a dramatic increase; it represents an increase of approximately four thirds of the figure for the producers’ prices.

Two important phenomena arise as a result and these include a few large items. I am not even referring to the largest item, namely interest rates. A large item such as fuel showed a figure of 100 in 1975. In 1987 it was 575. In 1975 the figure for fertilizer was 100 and in 1987 it was 412. In 1975 the figure for tractors was 100, and in 1987 it was 692. That is how the input costs increased.

The other important phenomenon is that these large items, which are the main cost factors, have increased enormously recently. The latest increases have been breathtaking. It is a fact, and we cannot disregard it. that the price of diesel which is used for agriculture, has increased by 60% over the past eight months. The price of fertilizer is going to increase by a minimum of 24% this year. I realise there is only one hon Minister of Agriculture in the Cabinet. However, these matters have to be addressed. The price increase for diesel is greater than the price increase for petrol, even though it is mainly diesel—I would say 90%—that is used for production in agriculture, industry, mining and other institutions.

I apologise to the hon the Minister for saying this, but when one looks at the Government’s decisions, one is reminded of the story of Pharaoh who was blinded and did not see what he was doing. Since our economy is showing no growth, I cannot understand why the Government is dealing with these production factors in such a manner that no growth can take place.

It is making growth impossible. We have already reached a situation where development does not pay. The people responsible for this irrigation scheme were relieved that the matter did not come to a head in time. If it had. they would have been in difficulties now. Surely a country cannot find itself in a position where development is no longer profitable and becomes a disadvantage. South Africa is a country with a growing population and it has to use its agricultural products to find itself a place in the world.

It is a fact that the Government imports food products to protect the consumer. We have no objection to imports being used in order to establish competition and to eliminate market shortages. We are not in favour of people not having anything to eat. Therefore imports must be used. However, we also say that imports should be used in a realistic and judicious way. Recently beef was imported and this influenced the price. Chicken was imported and there were allegations of irregularities concerning chickens which came from France and were imported through some of our neighbouring countries where no proper control was exercised. It is a fact that at present there is more and more chicken in South Africa. Wheat and Burley tobacco have been imported.

The matter of the importation of Burley tobacco is another practical example which makes one wonder what the considerations were. The Burley tobacco industry is centred mainly in the Ohrigstad valley and the economy of that highly-productive valley is based on the Burley tobacco industry. Burley tobacco is the salt and pepper of the tobacco industry—it is added in small amounts to improve tobacco’s quality.

For a number of years the Government allowed Burley tobacco to be imported from Malawi. It was allowed to an increasing extent until the total imports at one stage equalled the total production of the Ohrigstad valley. In other words, the domestic production was replaced completely by a foreign product. This led to the Ohrigstad valley experiencing a chaotic financial crisis. Those farmers could not sell their produce. If there had been problems with the quality, those people should have been informed that tobacco was to be imported. They were not informed that a substitute was to be imported and that they had to see to the quality and rectify any problems. I do not think any farmer who finds himself in a competitive position would react indifferently. The fact of the matter is that the East is now importing from Malawi and as a result the Burley tobacco of the Ohrigstad valley is good enough for the South African market again. However, those producers have been ruined financially.

I think competition is a good thing, but when competition is taken to the extent that it ruins an industry, one should see how competition is applied and handled. What is more, I want to say that this was done to protect the consumer in South Africa. Why does the same principle not apply to those who supply agricultural goods? Why is the same principle not applied to encourage some competition in respect of the supply of agricultural requirements? Why may fertilizer not be imported? The hon the Minister is afraid that the domestic industry will be destroyed and we agree with that. We cannot allow our domestic industry to be destroyed, but I think it is unreasonable to punish the farmer to such an extent and to stand by while a whole area is destroyed because the principle of a free market and competition is not being applied throughout. It is always applied when the farmer is the loser, but it never applies when other people are affected. Competition could be stimulated by importing a few tractors. I agree that the market is very poor; tractors are not being sold in South Africa, but the poor farmer is the one who has to pay the price in the end.

I now want to put a question. Last year the hon the Minister announced a policy which contained a number of points. I want to say, with all due respect, that we can discuss it, criticise it and comment favourably on it, but the important point is that unless the basic causes of the problems are rectified, the measures he is taking will come to nothing; on the contrary, the basic causes are going to wreck the hon the Minister’s measures, or could wreck them, because they are not being addressed.

The basic problem is that inflation has to be rectified. South Africa’s agricultural problems cannot be solved in isolation. They have to be seen against the background of the South African economy as a whole. The country’s inflation is such that agriculture finds itself in a position where we have to admit that it no longer pays to develop. That is the position we have reached, but if it continues, we shall reach a point where we will have to admit that we can no longer use everything we have developed. We have to use less now.

With all due respect, I have to say something about the conversion scheme. We told the hon the Minister that he had to implement it, because it had a limited value and it could play a role. We must not think it is going to create Utopia, however. At the same time, however, it is also an acknowledgement of the fact that although certain products could be produced profitably in the past, it is no longer possible to do so. We are going further and further. If inflation continues, we shall become more and more entangled in that situation. Eventually we shall reach a point where the hon the Minister can present his son with a farm with all the necessary implements, so as to give him a good start, but if he has to farm he will find after five years that he cannot make enough of a profit even to make a living for himself and his family. We are heading for a point where farming will be unprofitable. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Lichtenburg has just made a contribution typical of the party he represents. The hon member fired a salvo of birdshot. Jotting down all the different subjects the hon member mentioned, I could not keep pace with him because he jumped too quickly from one to another.

If I have to summarise what the hon member tried to say here, I would say that what he said, in effect, was that this Government should implement effective price control. That is, in fact, what the hon member said. At the end he also said something sensible, and that is that the problems of agriculture cannot be solved in isolation, and I want to agree with that. The problems of the economy must be solved in their totality.

During the hon member’s agreement, when he spoke about specific small components of the overall situation, he only mentioned the various problems to be solved. The hon member contradicted himself.

The hon the Minister will reply to the hon member about his allegations concerning the price of diesel, input costs and that sort of thing. [Interjections.]

I want to refer again to the contribution of the hon member for Dysselsdorp who unfortunately is not present in this Chamber at the moment. I am very sorry about that. The hon member for Dysselsdorp made a very emotional speech here about the restrictive measures which apply to Coloured farmers. Surely the time has now come for us to talk frankly with one another. We must now tell our colleagues in the House of Representatives that the time for talking a lot of nonsense for cheap political ends has really passed. [Interjections.]

With respect, Mr Chairman, the hon member for Dysselsdorp does not have a case. I want to put it to him that I do not know of one case, in my area or in any other area, of an application from a Coloured farmer for a permit having been turned down. I do not know of one such instance. [Interjections.] There is one more thing we have to say to one another. Surely, if we have to lift the restrictive measures, we must do so throughout South Africa. Surely we cannot only lift them merely to benefit Coloured farmers. Surely we must also lift them to benefit the Viljoens, Delports and Hammans living in my constituency adjacent to Genadendal, which is a Coloured area where they cannot buy land. Then we must lift the measures at Elim as well, because many farmers in the Elim area would also like to buy there. Then we must also lift them in Houtkloof, where the hon member of the House of Representatives did not want to permit the transfer of land from a Coloured farmer to a White farmer this year. [Interjections.]

I think the time has passed for making cheap politics and motive comments about a lot of things not based on facts. The hon members of the House of Representatives would do better to dedicate their time and energy to seeing that farmers were better trained so as to enable them to compete in the economy. [Interjections.] If they did not enjoy the protection of the Group Areas Act, they would have less than they have today. It is time they heard this for once. [Interjections.]

I want to return to the price of bread. The hon the Minister’s announcement about the price of bread emphasised the fundamental aspect of the agricultural industry in South Africa, and that is the interdependence of the consumer and the agricultural sector. It does not benefit either the consumer or the agricultural industry to blame each other for a price that is too high or too low. I want to refer again to the hon member for Dysselsdorp who said that the price of bread should be reconsidered. I want to say, with respect, that if the consumer did not pay a fair price for bread, he might shortly find himself in a position in which the reduction in the bread price could be the price at which he sold the security inherent in being self-sufficient. The realistic and sensible approach to the price of a strategic foodstuff such as bread is to consider the cost of the alternative. The consumer who thinks he cannot afford the increase in the price of bread should realise—and I think we should say it in public here today—that he can afford the alternative even less. What he can afford even less is a wheat industry which phases itself out as a result of decreasing profits until the consumer finds himself in a position in which he lacks the security inherent in being self-sufficient. The time has come for the consumer and the farmer to regard each other as partners in the food market. Each has the elementary right to admonish and address the other about affordability. In the interest of both parties we must surely also address each other on the question of costeffectiveness.

Since we are talking about cost-effectiveness, we should just examine the price of bread in South Africa and then thank this Government for being able to supply the cheapest bread in the world to the South African consumer. Let us look at a comparison. The Department of Agriculture obtained these figures for me from the Union Bank of Switzerland which conducted a survey on the net incomes of 12 different professional classes.

In Geneva in Switzerland a person has to work for 10 minutes to buy a kilogram of bread; in Brussels he has to work 9½ minutes; in Dussel-dorp in Germany he has to work 19½ minutes; in London the British have to work 14 minutes; and in Johannesburg the average employee works 7 minutes to be able to afford a kilogram of bread.

What about the Coloureds?

That hon member must not talk about the Coloureds now. I said it was an average figure for 12 professional groups determined by the Union Bank of Switzerland and not— the hon member for Groote Schuur must listen carefully—a so-called apartheidsbank in South Africa or the NP! This was an international survey. We compare apples to apples. This is not about Coloureds in South Africa and Whites in Geneva. Let us get rid of these sickly attempts at comparing Whites and Coloureds once and for all! [Interjections.] I am talking specifically of the situation in Johannesburg.

The price of a kilogram of bread in Switzerland is R5,20; in New York it is a little over R3; and in Johannesburg the price is R0,85. After the increase the price will be R0,90. Surely there is no comparison! This Government could manage to do this, even though our wheat crops are amongst the smallest in the world, and the costs are therefore high, and our input costs are increasing dramatically.

The other factor arising from this is that the secondary industry— the milling and the baking industry—in South Africa is one of the most efficient and cost-effective industries in the world. If, with the highest domestic wheat price in the world, we can manage to have the lowest bread price in the world, it is certainly an achievement of which any Government and any industry can be proud, and I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on that.

Mr Chairman, let me say at once that we on this side of the House greatly appreciate the way in which the hon the Minister … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, there is an old saying that a soldier cannot fight on an empty stomach. Similarly it is true that a country’s economy cannot be maintained if its agriculture and marketing are neglected. There can be no doubt that agriculture and marketing form the backbone of any country’s economy and feed workers throughout the country and stimulate the economy to be more productive.

However, in spite of human expertise and ingenuity, nature follows its course. It is therefore very important to preserve and cherish the fertile soil so as to supply its healthy fruit to the advantage of everyone in South Africa. If nature intervenes and disasters hit us, as was the case in Natal and in the Orange River flood disaster, surely it is logical to assist everyone, irrespective of race or colour, so that the soil that sustains us, can be saved.

We understand and appreciate that nowadays people of colour are being trained by farmers so that they can contribute through more effective management and work performance towards promoting the country’s economy. However, it is a fact that these trained workers, just like any other healthy person, should also be inspired and motivated to one day contribute as a farmer and as a fully fledged South African to the country’s economy. In my opinion the redistribution of land is therefore essential. It is a well-known fact that people are better informed and have higher expectations thanks to technological development. South Africa is large enough for us all and if Brown and Black farmers are afforded the opportunity, this can only make a contribution to stimulate and promote the country’s economy.

Mr Chairman, I want to tell the hon member for Upington that it is NP policy to uplift the less developed sections of our population.

Furthermore I want to link up with the hon member for Lichtenburg—with a slight shift in emphasis—on the irrigation scheme which must be subsidised. The problem experienced by the South African farmer is that we have to contend with overproduction. By subsidising additional production, we exacerbate the farmers’ overproduction problem.

Today I want to talk about agriculture in the overall national economy of South Africa. Like Nampo, I believe that there would be a much better understanding of agriculture if the other inhabitants of the country were more familiar with the problems of agriculture. Furthermore the president of the South African Agricultural Union said the State should also be called to account owing to the part it has played in the increases of input costs in agriculture.

Before I go any further I should like to congratulate the South African Agricultural Union on its excellent review they gave of South African agriculture as a sector of the South African economy. This document really paints a favourable picture of the macro-conditions in agriculture, but there are also very clear danger signals as regards conditions in specific industries, as well as the relative movement of input and output costs.

Because I believe that it is important to take note of the views of agriculture over a broader front, it was a great disappointment to me when the South African Agricultural Union did not accept the invitation to give evidence before the Standing Committee on Finance—which by the way was done at the insistence of our farmers. I am convinced that such a meeting would have presented an excellent opportunity to discuss agriculture in the context of the national economy as a whole so that the “financial legislator” and agriculture could become more conversant with each other’s problems.

It is a fact that the SAAU addresses the various parties’ agricultural study groups each year. However, this forum is completely different to a discussion with the SCOF. The discussion with study groups basically entails putting agricultural problems to a group of people who are already familiar with the problems in the industry. Often they do not have the necessary financial background to conduct a discussion on agriculture’s position vis-à-vis the economy as a whole. More intensive discussion and a mutual exchange of views on the following matters would have been possible in a discussion with the Standing Committee on Finance.

Firstly there is the problem experienced by agriculture, as one of the major consumers, in regard to the runaway input costs, over and above those increases which are caused as a result of the lower level at which the exchange rates are moving. These price increases take place in spite of the fact that there is a real increase in purchases. When I refer to runaway prices, I mean prices that increase much more rapidly than the inflation rate. After all, it is contrary to all economic laws that prices should increase when turnover increases. In such a case the input prices are supposed to drop!

Similarly it is a fact that food prices increase much more rapidly than producer prices. Why do we have this state of affairs? Why can profits in the other sectors of our economy increase up to 40% per year? And why are increases far above the increases in their turnovers reported by suppliers? The answer is quite simple. There is a lack of fair competition. This in turn can be traced back to the excessive financial concentration in our economy. A few large financial institutions and conglomerates control the overall provision and marketing turnover of processed agricultural products.

The SAAU should therefore have been able to support the proposals we agriculturalists made so that the following report could have been submitted to the hon the Minister: “The situation with regard to agriculture as a large consumer is being detrimentally affected by an excessive financial concentration in our economy.” This is, after all, the case. The Government must familiarise itself with our problems. We must make them familiar with our problems, and we must also strengthen their hands so that corrective steps can be taken. This is the recipe for success!

Secondly—as we are all aware—the salary increase for public servants made a tax on fuel necessary in January of this year, which caused an increase of 18% in the price of agricultural diesel. I think it is vital for the Government to know how agriculture, which is the largest single consumer of liquid fuel, feels about this matter. Should the increase not have been granted? Should the increase have been financed in an inflationary manner by creating money which would have further increased the already unacceptably high inflation rate? Or did the Government do the right thing?

The most penetrating discussion, however, would have been about interest rates and the factors which influenced them during the past year. It is common knowledge that interest rates represent one of the most significant production costs in agriculture. The most recent figure for last year is R1,7 billion. Government intervention in the case of interest rates therefore has a very real influence on the input costs of agriculture. Interest rates are very closely bound up with the availability of capital on the one hand and the level of economic activity on the other. As is well known, the increase in the real growth of the economy last year was 60% higher than that of the previous year. There was consequently a considerable increase in economic activity.

Furthermore, from 1985 to the end of 1988 the Republic had to discharge no less than R15 billion in overseas debt in terms of the debt standstill agreement. Understandably this combination of circumstances put tremendous pressure on the available domestic capital resources. Methods simply had to be found to prevent the pressure from getting completely out of hand. Otherwise there would have been chaos in the Republic’s money markets and the small businessman and the farmer would have been completely devastated by the runaway interest rates. The Government’s solution was to guarantee overseas loan facilities at a low premium, allowing importers to finance imports overseas instead of having to borrow funds on the local capital market. Our capital resources were therefore relieved of the pressure of having to finance R50 billion per annum in imports. This contributed greatly to preventing interest rates from rising even higher than they had already risen.

Therefore every person who had to borrow money in South Africa benefited from this and could take advantage of it. The facility of financing imports abroad also contributed to decreasing the demand for foreign exchange. It was to the benefit of our exchange rate, which in turn meant, inter alia, that the price of imported diesel benefited.

As a result of the improved agricultural conditions, as discussed in the document of the SA Agricultural Union—to which I referred earlier on—the farming community is in the process of replacing farm equipment. If the overseas financing resources had not been created, this re-equipping would have been much more expensive, inter alia as a result of the higher interest rates attendant upon a lack of capital, to which I referred earlier.

Therefore the loss in foreign exchange that was suffered has, in reality, already benefited and been to the advantage of the inhabitants of the Republic. This is why the SAAU must state its views in respect of these different decisions, because as I indicated, every decision that affects agriculture is inter-connected with decisions arising from the overall economy of the country. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the previous speaker spoke a lot about finances, rentals and interests. My message to the NP and the Government is that they should please stop playing Mother Hubbard to the agricultural industry. That and that alone is keeping the agricultural industry grounded—subsidisation, financial assistance, etc. I am talking from experience. I have been a farmer for many years. My community and I—people of colour—never depend on the Government for any assistance. They were denied it in the first place and until quite recently, when some concessions were made. However, our success proves that the Government should not play Mother Hubbard and spoil the farmers by making them lethargic.

*Agriculture plays a crucial role in South Africa’s mixed economy. I believe that about one third of South Africa’s farmers are heading for disaster today.

What is the cause of this? Who is responsible for the deterioration of our farming community that used to be so vital and efficient? It is the interference of politics with the agricultural economics of our country, and it is this political interference—not the present Government— that has fanned inflation. The Government has merely continued the trend, hoping that they would be able to stimulate the economy. Too often we tend to accept untruths as the truth without asking questions.

†It is a fact. We accept certain stated facts without looking deeper into them. They are quite often mistaken facts.

I blame the Government for allowing farmers to borrow beyond their means. This is causing our farmers to follow a path of ruination. In the Government’s White Paper on Agriculture of 1984 a firm commitment to a free-market system was made.

In recent years 84% of the total value of agricultural production was controlled by various control boards. While opinions may differ, the existence of control boards and their functions raise an issue of fundamental importance, and that is free enterprise and the free market. The control boards act as a bar to the proper and orderly development of the agricultural industry. Their activities impede the improvements and progress of the smaller job-creating middle-class farming community, which comprises mainly people of colour. These boards of control are obsolete and I urge the Government to abolish the various control boards and to establish a national marketing board or agricultural products exchange scheme, similar to the Citrus Exchange Board.

The Citrus Exchange Board only creates the market for farmers to dispose of their products, but there is no price fixing or price guarantee for the producers. The price is determined by the law of supply and demand on the market. As an advocate of the free market system, I believe that politicians and public servants should remain in the wings and interfere as little as possible. The Government’s sole economic duty should be to provide a legal infrastructure which allows the natural law of supply and demand to operate without impediment.

I now come to something which is very near and dear to my heart, and which is also near and dear to the hearts of all people of colour in South Africa. The hon the Minister in his opening speech today touched on the concept of making more food available for the poor communities of South Africa. He mentioned the Smith Committee investigation and he argued the case for continuing to subsidise food products.

This is where the real battle between me and the hon the Minister, my friend of the past five years, starts. I would like to refer the hon the Minister to the Freedom of Farming Bill, specifically the second half of the long title of the proposed Bill and I quote:

This long title of the Bill answers the hon the Minister’s question in more than one way. What is our problem? Why is there a shortage of food? I will tell the hon the Minister if he, his department or anybody else does not know. In 1948 we had 138 000 farmers on the land in South Africa. At this stage we have 58 000 and our population has virtually doubled since 1948. In other words, fewer than half of the producers that existed in 1948 are trying to feed twice the number of mouths at this stage. That is the reason why we are paying such high prices for foodstuffs— the scarcity of—the commodity. The Freedom of Farming Bill has been before Parliament since 1985, for five sessions. When it came before the joint committee this year I was very cross when the chairman of the committee told me that the hon the Minister of Agriculture did not favour this Bill. I would like to know why. In which way is this Bill in conflict with the Government’s policy of free enterprise? [Interjections.] In which way is this Bill in conflict with the Government’s intention of job creation? In which way is this Bill contrary to the Government’s policy of food production? [Interjections.]

This is our life, Sir. The result is that I have lost complete faith in the NP, its leadership and the Government! [Interjections.] I will tell hon members why. This year the hon the Acting State President said it was no use to just talk about getting rid of discrimination. He said we must get rid of discrimination. However, this Bill was rejected by the NP in the joint committee. On what grounds? It was purely racial discrimination. They do not want to allow people of colour to enter the farming industry. Otherwise they must give me good reasons. There is no reason for rejecting this Bill. This is beyond my sense of comprehension; it is beyond the understanding of any reasonable, sensible man throughout this country. Why was this Bill, which is aimed at supplementing the food production of the country, job creation and reducing food prices in the national interest, something which is going to help to boost this country’s economy, blocked by the NP? [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a real pleasure to follow on such a fiery democrat. I believe that everything he said about his Bill is absolutely true. There is no conceivable reason why the Freedom of Farming Bill should not be placed before Parliament for decision. It has an enormous amount of merit and I will be dealing with it later in my address.

With regard to the hon the Minister’s statement that the price of bread will be increased, I think this comes as a shock to everyone and I think that it will affect people who rely on bread as their staple food certainly far more than it will affect us here in this House. The suggestion that the increased subsidy is in fact a subsidy of bread is transparently incorrect. The hon the Minister referred to the increased production costs and the fact that subsidies could not come from other sources.

To my way of thinking there is no way one can say that one is increasing the subsidy on bread when one is increasing the price of bread. It is clear that the increased subsidy is going to protect the producer. It is going to meet his increased production costs and provide him with acceptable profit margins. [Interjections.] The producer must certainly be protected, but I believe one should not phrase an increased subsidy as a bread subsidy when it is in fact a producer’s subsidy. That is all I am saying.

This is the first time I shall be taking part for the DP in the debate on this Vote, and I would like to devote myself not to specific issues, but to certain broad fundamental aspects of agriculture.

Agriculture has always played a major part in the development of our country, and I believe that it has the potential to play a major role in our future, not only in the essential fields of feeding a rapidly growing population and supplying raw materials to industry, but equally importantly in providing jobs. Future generations will judge this ministry not simply by what has been done for the farmer of today, but also by the foresight shown in preparing agriculture for the South Africa of the 21st century. I intend dealing briefly with three areas in which I think long term planning is essential.

Firstly—this is where I link up with my hon friend who spoke before me—we have to remove the artificial barriers which exclude people of colour from participating in agriculture. [Interjections.] The NP Government of the fifties was quite correct in recognising the need to decentralise by creating work away from the existing metropolitan areas. Unfortunately they attempted to do so by the artificial process of creating industries in locations far from marketplaces, supporting industries and infrastructure.

However commendable the idea of industrial decentralisation may have been, it is generally accepted today that it has been a costly failure in the field of job creation. I believe that the Government should rather have unleashed the enormous job creation potential in agriculture. Just as the relaxation of trading restrictions has resulted in unprecedented growth in the informal sectors in and around our cities, I believe that the abolition of racial restrictions on the purchase and occupation of agricultural land could create work opportunities and a livelihood to millions of rural South Africans and become a major factor in stabilising the population shift to the cities. I am not suggesting that this will be a panacea or that we can ever reverse the process of urbanisation, nor do I believe this to be desirable. Urbanisation is a natural process and particularly in this country it will continue.

By scrapping the Black Land Act and removing the artificial barriers urban Blacks could again become a major force in our agricultural economy, and at the same time go a very long way towards alleviating unemployment and, more specifically, rural poverty.

I do not wish to dwell on the evils of the 1913 Black Land Act. That is a subject on its own. It is sufficient to say that today people who have studied the history of this country generally accept that many Black farmers, squatters and share-croppers in many instances farmed far more efficiently and far more competitively than many of the undercapitalised White landowners of that time. Despite subsidies and Land Bank loans there are still vast tracts of underutilised and undercapitalised White owned farmland in this country.

I believe that if restrictions were lifted and Blacks were allowed and encouraged to return to farming, they could in time absorb the underutilised land, initially by small scale intensive farming whereby they could provide jobs for themselves, their families and additional labourers, and at the same time they could sustain family life in the rural areas and stabilise population flow.

If this Government is to be realistic in forward planning they have to accept that, like the other sectors of our economy, agriculture will not escape Black advancement with all its needs and demands. A Minister with vision would welcome the enormous potential in this dynamic and plan so that South Africa and the agricultural industry can gain the most advantage from the incorporation of the Black farmer into the system. How should this happen, though? I believe that the redistribution of land through the free market and according to the principles of supply and demand is far preferable to a socialist-styled redistribution enforced by some future government. Likewise it is preferable to allow farmers to develop their entrepreneurial skills by merging into our present system, rather than to have a large number of inexperienced farmers imposed on our agricultural industry over a short period of time. Yet this will happen if we continue to resist natural need and demand by perpetuating the artificial restraints on occupation and ownership of agricultural land. If we keep the lid on this pot, the same thing will happen as will happen in other areas of the economy where we are not prepared to allow all citizens of this country to participate freely in the free market in all the avenues of enterprise. Agriculture is absolutely no exception.

The second aspect where I believe future generations will pass judgement on this ministry lies in the area of soil conservation. In the most recent annual report the Director-General points to “a still deteriorating and excessive loss of soil” with more than 80% of farms in some districts not being adequately protected. I appreciate that the Government is obviously aware of the devastating effects of soil erosion. Soil erosion has been with us for ages and people have always been aware of its devastating effects. However, awareness is not enough. The indictment which this Government will have to answer is why, in the year of 1989, we have not reached the stage where soil rehabilitation has overtaken soil erosion. Why are we still in the red? Why are we not on the positive side of the balance sheet? If we are really aware of the devastating effects of soil erosion, why are we still regressing? I accept that soil erosion is an ongoing and ever-present process, but I do not accept that it is something which has to be regarded as unavoidable, nor can we afford to abandon eroded land as being beyond repair. I accept that the responsibility for soil conservation does in the first instance lie with the land-owner, but where he ignores his responsibility I believe it is the Government’s duty to ensure that our land does not disappear down the drain.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Groote Schuur will pardon me for not following up on his speech. I must say though that it is a tragic day when a large party, as the DP perceives itself to be, has no agriculturalist to represent it in this House. [Interjections.]

I want to talk to hon members about a matter to which the hon the Minister has already referred and which I believe is a very urgent and crucial matter, namely the problem of the undersupply or overproduction of potatoes. In order to give hon members a better idea of this problem it is perhaps necessary for me to sketch a bit of the background on this whole industry as well as on the establishment of the Potato Board itself.

In the potato industry overproduction is perhaps a greater problem than it is in any other industry because in the first place, as hon members know, potatoes are a perishable product. Secondly this product does not have much of an export market. And it is true that the problem of surpluses was what led directly to the setting up of a committee in 1947, in terms of the war measures applicable at the time, after the potato market had completely collapsed, to deal with this serious problem.

The steps taken by this committee, as a stabilising factor, were such a great success that it was decided in 1951 to establish a Potato Board, in terms of the Marketing Act. with the important function of eliminating surpluses from the market and in no way acting as a marketing board.

Over the years the board, with its various schemes, has done fantastic work and has stimulated the consumption of potatoes in the furthest corners of our country. Unfortunately I am not able to do justice to all the various functions of the board in the time at my disposal, but I want to refer, inter alia, to the stock seed potato scheme. As a result of this scheme the country imports practically no more stock seed potatoes and a great deal of foreign currency is saved.

Like other agricultural boards the Potato Board has also, from time to time, or on a continuous basis, with the concurrence of the Minister, imposed levies on the producers to build up a stabilisation fund so that their administration costs can be covered and surpluses eliminated. This levy has been collected from the producer for many years now on a unit basis, namely so many cents per bag. In 1982, for example, the amount was 6c per bag.

In spite of this, by 1982 a stabilisation fund of only R2,7 million had been built up. and this severely restricted the Potato Board and its activities. It was therefore decided to convert to a percentage basis which at that stage was only 3%. As a result of this change the Potato Board built up a stabilisation fund of R32 million within 6 years. This was the amount which remained after the board had used R1,5 million to double the size of its building and after a great deal more had been spent on advertising during that period. I shall come back to this later. Even this year an amount of R3 million is being budgeted for advertising.

Unfortunately I do not know what prompted the board to return to a unitary basis for its levies of 15c per bag as from 1 February of this year. In the meantime the commission to market agents and market masters is still calculated on a percentage basis at 5%. This ensures these people of a tremendous income. In 1988, for the sale of potatoes alone, an amount of R4 million was paid to the Johannesburg market and an amount of R2,3 million to the Pretoria market.

Meanwhile the consumption of potatoes has also increased considerably. It has increased to such an extent that last year there was a production of 80 million bags, 47 million of which were sold by the national markets at an average price of—hon members must listen to this—R5,85 for January, R6,12 for February and R7,96 for March. As a result of a very good rainy season and more extensive planting by traditional potato producers—because I am assured by the manager of the Potato Board that new entrants to the industry were only a fraction—the production this year increased by 40%. According to the most recent survey it would appear that the overall production this year will be more than 98 million bags, 58 million of which will pass through the national markets. This caused a surplus of 12 million bags and the price dropped. This morning I contacted the Johannesburg market and there was a supply of 140 000 bags, with an average price of R3 per bag. On Monday there were 204 000 bags on the Cape market, while the sales were between 30 000 and 40 000 bags per day.

Meanwhile the operating costs—input costs and marketing costs—of the farmer have increased to an amount of R5 000 per ha. I am prepared to enter into an argument with anyone about this amount. I have the figures but unfortunately not the time to deal with them in detail. The amount was calculated at a yield of 1 200 bags per ha.

In other words, we are talking about a production cost of approximately R4,20 per bag of potatoes. I am saying this because I want to bring the seriousness of the matter to the hon the Minister’s attention. I believe that potatoes, like many other products, are a very important strategic product in South Africa. I can say with great pride today that the potato farmers in this country have never found it necessary to ask the hon the Minister or the Government for help. If this situation were allowed to continue, however, the potato farmers in this country would get badly hurt, and then the hon the Minister would have to help them as well.

One must get rid of the surplus.

I am coming to that. All the indications are that this year there is going to be a bumper crop. And if there has ever been a time for the Potato Board to do everything in its power and to put all its schemes for the elimination of surpluses into operation, it is now. The Potato Board will have to take manifest steps to overcome this major problem. Therefore it was with great disappointment, and almost with a sense of dissatisfaction, that I learnt from the most recent circular put out by the Potato Board that they are not going to do anything as far as the elimination of surpluses is concerned. Over the past few days I have received urgent representations from various market agents and from a wide range of producers. I have here a letter from the district farmers’ union of Bethlehem in which they earnestly ask for something to be done about this matter.

Let us have a look at the Potato Board circular. In this letter they discuss the elimination of surpluses and come up with certain suggestions. They say, inter alia:

At the outset I said that export possibilities were fairly limited. They have the following to say about this:

The producers’ costs are over R4! What is more they say:

In other words the best quality at R2 per bag. I am tempted to say that that is ridiculous.

Furthermore they refer to advertising and say they are going to spend R3 million on advertising. Then there is this very ironic statement:

In other words, surplus elimination—

This is only natural. If they are not doing anything, why do they still want such a levy? All of a sudden they are talking about 15c per bag. If this were calculated on a percentage basis at 3%, the most it could amount to would be 9c.

The board also states that it must be a team effort. They tell the farmers what to do with regard to proper sorting and grading. They also say that some potatoes must be kept back and used as fodder and silage and that some must be destroyed. [Interjections.] Is it possible to tell farmers that they must destroy their product? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the previous speaker who said that the production costs of a pocket of potatoes today is R4,20 and therefore it is not profitable to plant potatoes. It proves what the previous CP speaker said, namely that it does not pay to use initiative. The hon member for Bethlehem admits it. I want to tell him that I planted potatoes in my day, but I saw that it was not profitable because it is a perishable product so I abandoned the idea.

I was also a Nationalist in earlier years and when I realised that the NP was a “perishable” party, I broke away. [Interjections.] The hon member proposes a removal of surplus. I agree; it is a lovely word. I think a “removal of surplus” is also necessary for the NP. Furthermore the hon member said that he had received a letter from the farmers in the district of Bethlehem in which they say that something must be done about the matter. The best thing that can happen in Bethlehem, is the election of a CP MP. The hon member does not know what to do with his potatoes! [Interjections.] He has had his “chips”.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is aware that the potato price curve, as seen over the long term, indicates a real growth rate, just as is the case with the NP. [Interjections.]

What does it indicate? [Interjections.] I want to reply to the hon member. Growth in the NP is certainly a dream. The hon member is busy with an immense dream (droom), or rather a syndrome (sindroom). However, I shall leave the matter at that.

I want to give the hon the Minister a few kudos for having decided to tackle the agricultural problem. However, if I have to give him kudos for the manner in which he wants to solve this problem, I unfortunately cannot do it, because there is very little lustre in his method. I read last year’s Hansard and I think that the hon the Minister became entangled in a maze of words, confusing ideas and hackneyed expressions. [Interjections.] We on this side of the Committee, however, are not impressed or misled by them.

The hon the Minister evidently becomes excited about aspects such as market-orientatedness, consensus committees, income elasticity, but especially about structural change, land conversion schemes, diversification, whole-farm approach and marginal land. These are all fine-sounding words and ideas which, if regarded as superficial, offer a seemingly possible solution for the dilemma of agriculture, while in reality they actually say very little. However, the value the hon the Minister attaches to these ideas, as if they will create a Utopia for the farmer, is somewhat far-fetched.

In column 8721 of the 1988 Hansard the hon the Minister emphasises his very important new policy standpoint in agriculture, namely structural change which leads to the land conversion scheme involving all summer grain products. Furthermore the hon the Minister says:

This is a kind of “whole-farm” approach, a land conversion scheme of marginal lands. Mr Chairman, I have a big problem with this action of the hon the Minister to save agriculture from a downfall. As a matter of fact, let us look at the healthy agricultural development in the RSA and the strategic plan of the SAAU. I quote:

I am of the opinion that the hon the Minister is finally going to plunge agriculture into an even greater plight with catastrophic results for the whole country. I wish to analyse the above-mentioned aspects a little. Firstly the problems of one branch of farming cannot simply be transferred to another one. In such an event only the position of the problem in agriculture is transferred, and it can even worsen in the process.

The problem of the one is given to another. Great disruption can therefore occur in the total service structure of agriculture. A drastic change of equilibrium, as envisaged by the hon the Minister, is definitely undesirable. Secondly it certainly does not imply that suddenly no more input has to be made if a change is made from maize, grain or any other agricultural crop to grazing. In reality the production input is just as high with cultivated grazing, and even higher with maize cultivation. In this respect I wish to refer the hon the Minister to production rules of his own department’s co-ordinating extension officers’ activities. The same expensive input, such as fuel, machinery, tractors, fertilizer, etc applies whichever kind of farming is practised. Only a rearrangement of expensive production input takes place during a land conversion scheme with the attendant management disruption of the unfamiliar farming practice.

Thirdly expensive cattle purchases must take place to utilise the equally expensive adapted grazing and an already crippled farming industry must incur further debts, and do so at ever-increasing interest rates. Enormous costs are also incurred for the necessary infrastructure. It takes many years to learn the ropes of a brand new branch of farming such as cattle farming. Add to this that under the best management practices it takes about five to eight years before any appreciable profit can be realised. It can also be noted that there is an advantage in the land conversion scheme of the hon the Minister, but I want to make the assertion that it is the existing and established farmers in particular who enjoy its advantage. Therefore the objective is not achieved and farmers who are in reality self-supporting, are being helped even though they do not need the assistance.

Fourthly, it follows unquestionably that while the Government is re-establishing the so-called “earmarked areas” or “designated areas” with farmers, millions of rands are being pumped into the summer grain areas inter alia to produce red meat on a large scale.

Fifthly, the hon the Minister mentions that the long-term problems are the most important. I cannot agree completely with this statement of his. All problems, whether long-or short-term, are equally important. The fact of the matter is that unless the short-term problems receive immediate attention and are solved, farmers will suffer financially on a large scale. As a result there are few—if any—farmers who remain to enjoy the advantage of the long-term strategy. That the long-term problems are receiving attention, is beyond doubt. This only takes place after the problems that are facing our farmers have been solved.

With reference to this it is informative to mention what the hon the Minister had to say about agricultural debt in Hansard: Assembly, vol 14, col 8723:

Once again there is a miscalculation here regarding the contribution that drought would make to the financial disaster scene of agriculture. What is the interest factor? Where is it? It was shown unquestionably that the general farming industry in South Africa is showing a real decline in net income after interest. If the debtors’ accounts of the four largest grain corporations in the summer grain areas are reviewed and the large number of insolvent sales are added, it is frightening to see how these debtors have multiplied in real terms.

This increase is mainly on the farmers’ production account. In other words, it has to do with production inputs such as seed, fertilizer, pesticides. fuel, etc. If we take an example, the economic threats for the maize farmer are many. On the output side, it was confirmed clearly this year that export losses were going to affect the value of a good harvest negatively. Unlike in the seventies, the maize farmer can no longer depend on recouping his drought losses with good maize harvests.

With the large gap between the selling prices of maize and the delivery prices of the producers, the temptation of illegal maize sales is becoming more attractive to some people. I just want to mention it to the hon the Minister.

Who establishes the maize price?

That hon member wants to know who establishes the maize price. The maize price is established by scenarios. I am talking about input costs such as indirect taxation and import surcharges on necessary producer’s goods which, as hon members know, are a specific threat this year.

The State’s Budget was unquestionably inflationary. With a budgeted average inflation rate of 15%—I think it will be 18% by the end of the year—there are problems again. Owing to this the rand can be deflated further, which can evoke specific steps to protect the balance of payments.

The increase in fuel prices in April is an important example of this. The fact that the price of petrol—chiefly a consumer article—was increased by 7c, while the price of diesel—chiefly a production item—was increased by 9,4c for use on farms and 11,3c for use on roads, must be especially disquieting for the producer. The question that arises is what measures will have to be taken to cool the economy even more before the interest rates are increased further, especially if State expenditure is going to exceed the Budget again as usual. A further question is whether these measures, as with the increased fuel prices, are going to harm the producers rather than the consumer in the economy. The fact is that the costs, and specifically the production costs of the maize farmer, are going to increase even further this year.

It is also illuminating, and especially noteworthy, that this financial disaster situation developed gradually. However, it is clear that the hon the Minister, who is the watchdog and who must look after agriculture, has failed and continues to fail, to expose the irregularities. From the preceding it is clear that the drought of the previous seasons was not solely responsible for the financial dilemma of agriculture. The drought only highlighted the mistakes. The hon the Minister does not perceive the real problem and conveniently tries to shy away from it.

It rained well in the summer rainfall areas this year, but that is not going to solve the farmer’s problems. As far as inflation is concerned— another big cause of the financial problems, as explained by the hon the Minister—it can be said with confidence that the hon the Minister passed sentence on his own NP Government. Inflation is no act of nature. Inflation is a man-made illusion.

The hon the Minister and his colleagues in the Government are directly responsible for the creation of inflation, as well as the undesirable economic situation of our country which goes hand in hand with inflation. At the moment inflation is increasing. However, by hiding behind inflation, the hon the Minister is once again shying away from the true cause of the problem of agriculture.

In par 2 of column 8724 the hon the Minister politely mentions in what way the Government is looking at the untoward price increases in production inputs. It is a poor effort, because merely to look at something does not help. Only forceful action is worth anything. That is what we need— that dream of the NP to act forcefully. The hon the Minister and his colleagues have failed completely to do that.

If the abovementioned conduct of the hon the Minister is analysed and considered in a levelheaded way—in other words the fact that he does not emphasise the actual problem of agriculture, that he transfers the problem from one branch of farming to another rather than changing his view that the welfare of agriculture and the solution of the problems are to be found in meaningful structural changes—I must tell him that all these aspects direct the attention away from the real problem, namely the fact that the interests of the industries are protected in this case. [Interjections.]

The coffers of these princes are being filled to the brim at the expense of the farmer and the consumer. The hon the Minister must not proffer the job provision of the industries as an excuse. Together with mining, agriculture is the largest provider of jobs. [Interjections.] Do not say that it is strategically important; it can become a strategic danger if the farmers disappear.

The hon the Minister does not do anything to identify and seriously investigate the malpractice of the quantum of over-inputs as the chief cause in this drama. He prefers to shift the emphasis from the high inputs of the one industry to the other. I am not against livestock, but then everything must be balanced. In other words the hon the Minister is playing straight into the hands of the big moneyed interests and in this process our farmers are becoming addicted, impoverished and destroyed. One can just look around and see these things. [Interjections.] We on this side of the House are not only deeply shocked about the state of affairs; we also bemoan the fact that this process is continuing without rhyme or reason. Can the hon the Minister tell us how this problem is going to be solved? We are aware that food is one of the most strategic weapons in our hands. We must give priority to working with production inputs in a level-headed and responsible manner, in accordance with a realistic expectation with regard to output—that is to say, optimum profit and not maximum output—as a new dimension of thought and action in agriculture. The hon the Minister must, as I have already said, not only look at the excessive increase of input costs, but do something about it by placing subsidies at the beginning, since that also counteracts inflation. Then the salary demands will not be so heavy, because there will be a cheaper food basket. If these things are followed by the vertical integration of agricultural products and once the legality of this system is known, diversification, structural adaption, etc will not even be necessary. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I prayed this morning and I have just prayed again but this time I prayed and asked the Father to forgive him; he does not know what he is saying. [Interjections.] I am grateful to the Father that we have an hon Minister and hon Deputy Ministers here who do not become angry because I cannot say now what I became like because one is not permitted to use that word. Nevertheless I was damn cross. [Interjections.] I am very pleased that the hon member for Delmas said that he was National. He has gone off the rails, however. He does not have the type of face which belongs with them; he should come over here to us.

Order! The hon member for Worcester is not permitted to refer to the appearance of hon members. The hon member may proceed.

Oh, I apologise to the hon member for Delmas. [Interjections.]

Wine, wine farmers and the wine trade have featured rather prominently in the news recently. There have been various newspaper headlines such as: “Wynbedryf voor ’n groot dilemma”, “Wynboere se posisie raak al hoe hagliker” and still more in the same vein. I represent a constituency which is the largest producing region in the entire Republic of South Africa. The largest KWV brandy warehouse is at Worcester. Here the KWV and Distillers Corporation distil more brandy than in Paarl and Stellenbosch combined. We are not even talking about Wellington now; that is too small. [Interjections.] Many of the industries at Worcester have close ties with the wine industry and, aside from the KWV and Distillers Corporation, the Bree River Bottling Co-operative was established recently to serve 31 of the 38 local cellars. Hon members can see therefore that Worcester as town and district and I as the MP stand knee-deep in liquor and we are very proud of it.

The nature of a wine farmer is different from the rest. He does not easily moan and groan. We keep the sunny side up as long as possible. One can easily recognise a wine farmer.

The wine farmer and his people form part of the nobility of the country. When one sees one of them, one knows immediately who that person is. They are not made up of jeremiads. Wine farmers endure and remain erect and on the go where the rest would long since have given up the ghost and still we do not beg. But now there is trouble, Sir, and it is bad trouble.

The problem is very simple, but its effects are far-reaching. A wine farmer is not a lazy man and now our wine harvests are increasing but consumption is not keeping pace or, rather, consumption is dwindling.

Now hon members are to listen carefully. South Africa ranks ninth in the world as a producer of wine but only 28th as regards the annual per capita consumption of wine. In France 48,4 litres is consumed annually per capita as against only 9,72 litres here. Now I have to add that there is a significant group which consumes more than 9,72 litres per annum, even here in Parliament, but we are not getting the surplus away now.

In the boek, Wynwaardering, by Thinus van Niekerk, I read the following and now hon members are to listen carefully:

That is actually the cardinal point. He continues:

Less sulky—

Where can one find anything better? He says:

As I have just said, that is wine: Where could one find anything better?

But why does the public not actually want to drink enough wine? The problem of the sales of poorer wines is caused by increasing costs, smaller profit margins and also the standard price wines which have become so expensive that the ordinary wine market simply cannot absorb this. Packaging costs—I do not want to complain now—including labels for bottles, etc, which already exceed the price of the wine in the bottle, are also a problem. The cork and that little thing round it outside are more expensive than the wine inside. This places the product almost beyond the reach of the standard price which the consumer can afford.

People are also inclined to drink less wine but of a better quality. I have no problem with this. But then I get to the greatest problem. This lies in restaurants and hotels who take excessively high profits on wines which are not in accordance with their inputs and in so doing put consumers off wine. [Interjections.] That is true. That is a terrible thing. [Interjections.]

Some restaurants which permit a person to bring one’s own wine charge such high corkage—up to R10 per bottle, which is reasonably little—that one does not take wine along for a meal anymore. And then there is the image which some writers on wine and marketers develop regarding wine so that one has to be a connoisseur before one can drink wine. Now there are many people who do not want to drink wine because they think they will make fools of themselves if they order the wrong wine. Do hon members know, however, what constitutes the wrong wine? It is only that one does not like its taste. Then it is wrong. The cheapest wines are still the nicest. One should not permit other stuff which tastes like knobkieries to be forced down one’s throat. This does not work. There are too many types of wine and labels on the market. This confuses consumers. There are only five types of beer but there are hundreds of types of wine. This frightens the buyer off because he does not know where to turn. The decline is also caused by the many restrictions on the freer distribution of wine which prevents a more natural association of wine with food and therefore interest in wine.

The solution to this problem is not simple. I do not want to set the whole country adrinking but all I want is for everybody to drink a little in a decent way. We used to get one glass of wine every Sunday. We did not want to have a binge. If every person were to take one glass of wine every Sunday, he would drink 8 litres of wine a year. It helps and it makes one healthier. The good image of wine must be extended from the connoisseur to the man in the street. There must be fewer labels so that it does not look like a maze in there. Packaging must be made cheaper. Most important, however, regulations on the awarding of wine licences must be relaxed so that the sound principle of competition can keep wine prices in check at restaurants and liquor stores. I appeal to the people of our country: If one wants to remain healthy, take a drink. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to briefly add something in passing to the contribution of the hon member for Worcester. I was also born and raised in Worcester, but unfortunately I cannot appreciate a good glass of wine. However, I would like to ask the hon member for Worcester whether he could not fix on a different day of the week instead of Sunday for that glass of wine. Why not today, because then the hon member could possibly invite me.

At the outset of this debate we received some news that was not so good. This was in connection with the raising of the price of bread. In my opinion this is tragic news for my component of the population, because the fuel price was raised a few days ago. Hon members know that those of us who are situated further away from the Peninsula and the larger centres, feel those price increases very intensely. Everything has become more expensive in the rural areas and this morning the announcement was made in connection with the price of bread. The result is that, while the pay packet remains the same, our people must again buy less bread. That was also the result when the fuel price was increased— then we had to buy less food. With the announcement of the increase in the price of bread, we must again buy less bread. We do understand the problems of the maize farmer, the baker and the miller, but mention was made here of other ways and means—perhaps a system of coupons— which would make it possible for the poor man to buy his bread quota. I want to ask the hon the Minister, and I believe he has done this in the past, to consider the poor man in the future.

In regard to the hon member for Caledon I wish to mention that he said the hon member for Dysselsdorp was talking nonsense. He is unfortunately not here now, but I want to say to him that when I do not agree with someone and when I do not want to hear what someone is saying or I do not have an answer for him, I then say he is talking nonsense. I therefore assume that the hon member also did not have answers for the hon member for Dysselsdorp. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member also said he wanted to address a word of warning to the House of Representatives. He wanted to tell us the truth. I wish to ask him: What is the truth? He never arrived at the truth. In this debate this morning, we heard that all sectors of agriculture were knee-deep in trouble. What is the truth? The truth is that the situation in which we find ourselves is due to the policy of the NP. They must correct their policy and the LP believes everything else will come right. We will then have markets for our products, the inflation rate will drop, we capital will flow into the country, people would understand one another in this country, better wages would be paid and we so-called Coloureds would also be able to make a better contribution to the economy of the country.

The hon member said we should remove the restrictions applicable to our areas. We will do so. We will remove the permit system and open up our areas. However, I wish to tell the hon member for Caledon to return to the Bible. In the old language we have but a few inches of land while they have yards of it. I read in 2 Samuel 12 verse 1 about that king who was visited by a rich man. As the Scripture says, he and not I had flocks of small stock and herds of cattle. However, when a friend went to visit him, he took the poor man’s only ewe lamb. I do not want to mention this in the same context, but I want to point out that covetousness to hon members. The hon member for Caledon should actually have requested that measures be introduced so that the so-called Coloureds could keep the little land they have—less than 2 million ha in this large country—and that they can also buy land elsewhere if and when they can afford to do so.

These days we have to deal with free trading areas in this country where everyone can do business. Now we have to deal with free settlement areas which I believe will soon become a reality. The solution to this problem is to demarcate free or open farming areas immediately. Last year on 7 June the hon the Minister said in the House of Representatives that the Government had such an intention. I am pleased that this is so. I am pleased that certain areas are going to be opened up, where, in the words of the hon the Minister, Coloureds, Whites and everyone can purchase land.

However, what has happened to that intention? Until now we have heard nothing more about it. The implementation of the policy has been lagged behind and Coloured farmers still have to rely on the rural areas. I know the rural areas, especially the areas in Namaqualand. These areas are situated in parts of the country where it hardly ever rains and where there is no water. Furthermore in many cases it is not easy or possible for an outsider to purchase land in the rural areas for farming purpose. The hon the Minister knows that the carrying capacity of that land is low. The hon the Minister also knows that the land in the rural areas cannot be alienated.

As long as the Coloured farmer is dependent on the rural areas, farming in general will never come into the Coloured population. If there is one matter which the Coloureds and the Whites in this country have in common—apart from our language and religion—it is our love for the soil. We want to smell the soil. Just like the White man in this country, we want to feel the soil between our fingers. We have not acquired this love. It is not because land on which to farm is a status symbol for the Coloureds either. Nor is it a yardstick of prosperity. It is an inborn love. It flows in our veins. We want to smell and feel the soil.

Now there are many kinds of free areas. The hon the Minister can become a pioneer in this sphere. He will go down in the annals of history of the country if he comes to our rescue and makes free farming areas possible. The hon Minister now has a golden opportunity to implement his intention in practice. In this connection, I wish to refer to a speech the hon the Minister made last year in the same debate in the House of Representatives. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to follow briefly on a point made by the hon member for Hantam, viz that open competition must take place in the farming industry on agricultural land in this country. Statements were made that it is the NP’s fault. I want to say it is actually not the NP’s fault. I went into the history of agricultural land in this country, and separation in agricultural land in Natal took place in the 1890s, before there was a NP government. This took place for one particular reason, and that is because the White farmers were afraid of competition on the basis of labour intensive use of land. The issue that we have to address is free competition and free usage of land for the most efficient farmer at the price he can best produce. This should not be done on a racial basis.

I should like to address the question of the use of hormonal herbicides directly. The hon the Minister has been involved for some time in the massive problems brought about by the use of hormonal herbicides, and particularly the use of 24D. The Tala Valley has suffered. The hon the Minister knows that and he has been there. I am aware of it that the hon member Mr R Redinger has dealt with that question and that he has met with the farmers.

Now what has been achieved and what is happening? At the moment there is a massive civil court case in progress in the Natal Supreme Court between farmers and the chemical companies producing the hormonal herbicides. The matter is sub judice and I cannot and will not comment on it. However, investigations took place under this department, and particularly under the Department of Agriculture: House of Assembly, into the extent of the spread problem of the use of hormonal herbicides. The results of this investigation have—to say the least—proved controversial and varying interpretations were given to them.

Secondly, the question of the ban on the use of hormonal herbicides has been discussed. It has applied—as I understand—in the Western Cape for some years. It is applied in the Tala Valley and the surrounding area for some time. If Press reports are to be believed, it is to be applied to the whole of Natal for a year. The Sunday Tribune of this Sunday states, “State plans ban on weedkillers”, and this matter was raised by the hon member for North Coast.

The hon member Mr Redinger, however, said that was not correct. We need to know the truth. It is a matter of great controversy. We cannot carry on on like this with piecemeal bans. Let us hear the evidence and take action for the whole country. Let the hon the Minister also be aware of it that there are serious concerns on the use of hormonal herbicides by certain municipalities in urban areas. Reports on the death of trees in Pietermaritzburg, as a result of the use of herbicides, are clearly given. Hon members know that the berry crop—strawberries, gooseberries, etc—are being devastated. Hon members know what happens to tomato crops. They are aware of massive lettuce crops and what is happening to that.

Questions on human health also crop up. This issue has been addressed. The hon the Minister knows—and I do not intend to pursue it— the looming threat against South African fruit exports if such herbicides are in any way linked to those exports. This has to be addressed. The hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister are both aware of the sensitivity of this issue.

The question of compensation was raised by farmers. Who is responsible for the payment thereof? Warnings about herbicides were being given a number of years ago. Farmers are saying that if the State does nothing about it, the State will be responsible. The hon member for North Coast mainly represents a sugar-growing community. There is sensitivity in the sugar industry. We must, however, ask this question: If Florida can adopt rules and regulations for the use of hormonal herbicides, particularly 24D—Florida also grows very similar crops to that of Natal, like sugar-cane and pineapples in certain areas, and particularly vegetable crops—cannot South Africa also do something.

The hon the Minister knows these rules and we need to accept it that he has to make a statement on the situation in Natal in the very near future. The foot-dragging has carried on for too long. The farmers are absolutely incensed about the particular position. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, before I react to individual hon members, I want to touch upon two aspects which are of great importance.

The first relates to what the hon member for North Coast and the hon member for Pinetown referred to, a very sensitive matter in South African agriculture at the moment. I am referring to the use of 2,4-D in the Tala Valley. This matter has been discussed for quite a few months now, and Press reports have been used to magnify the problem unnecessarily. The news has already found its way into overseas newspapers. In one of the British newspapers it was alleged that South Africa was an “environmental horror”. We cannot allow this to happen, and it is necessary for us to deal with this matter very carefully.

The department did not sit still as far as this matter was concerned. A year ago I appointed an advisory committee to advise me on this. We conducted various monitoring campaigns to determine the extent of 2,4-D deposits in dew and in plants. Recently we invited one of the most prominent men in the field of hormone herbicides, ie Dr Breeze of England, to come to this country. He visited the Tala Valley and addressed farmers there, and his finding was that the deposits in soil, water, dew and plants were not so extensive that it necessarily meant that it was only 2,4-D that was causing the problem. He will draw up a report which we shall issue at a later date. The scientific investigation is therefore being carried out at present. We regard this in a very serious light. As hon members have said, 2,4-D also affects industries other than the vegetable industry.

I also want to tell the consumers of South Africa that allegations have been made about abnormalities in specific varieties of vegetables on the markets. We have called for investigations by the Directorate: Agricultural Product Standards, which has international knowledge at its disposal about the quality of these products, and we could find no such abnormalities at the majority of our markets. That is also a story that has been plucked out of thin air to cloud matters even further. There are certain people who want to exploit the problem in order to assist those who are boycotting us abroad.

†I am at present considering a temporary extension in Natal of the existing prohibition of the use certain herbicides in the Tala Valley and adjacent areas. The envisaged extension of the area in which the temporary prohibition will apply forms part of investigations being carried out by the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply and other organizations to determine whether the alleged pollution of the environment with herbicides is the main cause of reduced vegetable yields. Investigations so far have not yet eliminated the role of other stress factors such as plant diseases, pests and the occurrence of other chemicals in the air. Although monitoring by the department showed that there were small quantities of the hormone herbicides in rain and dew samples in Natal, no results are available indicating that such small quantities can result in crop losses.

As far as beans and lettuce are concerned, local research has shown for example that such small quantities do cause growth abnormalities but that they do not detrimentally affect yields. The decision to impose such a drastic prohibition over a wider area cannot be taken lightly because it has serious financial implications for other branches of farming such as the sugar, maize and forestry industries. The use of alternative and necessarily more expensive herbicides can, according to estimates, cost the industries concerned respectively R6,74 million, R1,89 million and R5,178 million more per year. Thus if it is at all possible to obtain information by other means in order to establish beyond all doubt what the cause is of the Natal farmers’ crop losses, then this should preferably be done.

It is of no avail to identify and hastily eliminate one factor without sufficient proof simply because it is alleged that it is the cause of the crop losses. If that then appears later not to be the case, it does not solve the vegetable farmer’s problem, and the other agricultural industries will have suffered considerable financial losses. The matter must therefore be treated with great circumspection.

Because it is important for the department to provide the Minister and all others concerned with authoritive advice concerning the consequences of the use of hormone herbicides, specifically in Natal but also in general in the RSA. A comprehensive research programme was launched which is receiving high priority. In future more attention will be given to the impact of the increasing use of other agricultural chemicals on the environment.

*We hope this will calm feelings down somewhat. Let me just say that we in South Africa cannot manage without these herbicides. A specific herbicide, 2,4-D, has been used for more than 30 years now and has not been banned anywhere in the world. We also use it in South Africa with great circumspection.

There is another aspect that is also very important, in my opinion, and I am glad the hon member for Moor River is present, because he asked me what degree of progress we had made with our terms of reference to the National Marketing Council to function in terms of Government policy, to be more market-orientated and to function less in a regulatory capacity, etc. Last year we tabled reports of the various schemes which have accordingly been amended. The hon member will remember that on several occasions I have reacted to this aspect. Today, after a period of more than three years since 2 April 1985, when I gave these terms of reference to the marketing boards, I briefly want to present a report to hon members. The terms of reference were that the following should be investigated: (a) The justification for the continuation of existing control schemes, (b) augmenting the administrations of agricultural marketing boards with a view to cost-saving and greater efficiency, (c) the justification for single-channel marketing schemes, (d) the justification for fixed-price systems and the method of price determination by way of pool systems, (e) limiting entry to an industry by way of restrictive registration and (f) less government intervention. The National Marketing Council has concluded its investigation, and reports and recommendations have been submitted to me. The reports were tabled in Parliament during August of last year. The National Marketing Council made the following recommendations, inter alia. Firstly, justification for the continuation of existing control schemes. No justification could be found for the continued existence of the SA Karakul Board. Consequently the Karakul scheme was withdrawn with effect from 1 June 1987. The board has been abolished and its functions transferred to the Karakul and Livestock Corporation, Ltd, which is performing this task equally well and equally effectively at present.

Secondly no justification could be found for control over the marketing of rye in terms of the winter grain scheme. Consequently the control over rye has been lifted by way of appropriate amendments to the scheme. If certain commodities, for which one did not need to introduce a control scheme or, of necessity, a fully administrative board were to present themselves, these examples would be followed. One of the problems is that we are continually being attacked in the Press for having 21 boards which supposedly cost the taxpayers so much money. Firstly that is untrue! The industry itself pays for the administration.

The administrations of the Potato Board, Dry Bean Board and Grain Sorghum Board were amalgamated into one central administration from 1 June 1986 and are now known as the PDG Board administration. It is already apparent that this amalgamation has given rise to greater efficiency. We are also examining other boards to see whether we cannot effect some administrative amalgamation to their administrations too. Here I am thinking specifically of the fruit boards. This is being investigated at present.

The SA Canned Fruit Export Board, which was established in terms of Act 100 of 1967 and which is administered by the Department of Commerce and Industry, has been consolidated into one agricultural marketing board, ie the Canning Fruit Board, in terms of the Marketing Act. The new consolidated canned fruit scheme came into operation on 1 October 1987, when Act 100 of 1967 was repealed.

Thirdly I want to speak about the justification for the single-channel marketing schemes. The single-channel marketing schemes afford producers some certainty in regard to their markets and their power to negotiate. In its investigation the National Marketing Council came to the conclusion that as the marketing policy of certain agricultural marketing boards moved more towards market-orientated prices, the singlechannel system in regard to such industries would, by a process of revolution, revert to some other type of control. I can tell hon members that that process is taking place in the case of maize and wheat. Marketing conditions quite simply compel one to examine another type of scheme.

In regard to industries such as the deciduous fruit and citrus industries, which handle highly perishable products and chiefly have recourse to export markets, the NMC is of the opinion that the single-channel system will remain in operation. Since industries to which the single-channel system is applicable have developed certain structures, summarily abolishing that system could disrupt such an industry, something which could, particularly in the long term, have an adverse effect on consumers. In the light of the above-mentioned factors, the NMC consequently did not recommend that the singlechannel system should summarily be dispensed with in cases in which it was being implemented.

I now come to the fixed-price systems and price determination by way of pool systems. Retail price control on butter and cheese was abolished with effect from August 1985. I can tell hon members that this is working very well. Wholesale price control in regard to cheese, ie the single-channel prohibition on the sale of cheese except by way of the Dairy Board was lifted as early as 1 October 1986, and that in regard to butter on 1 October 1988.

In order to determine prices on a more market-orientated basis, the producer price and sale price determinations in the case of maize, subject to certain provisions laid down by the Minister, were transferred to the Maize Board with effect from 1 May 1987.

In regard to wheat, tobacco, oil-seed, sunflower seed, peanuts and soya beans, marketing advisory committees, or consensus committees, as we call them, consisting of an equal number of buyers and sellers, have been established with a view to determining more market-related prices. For some years now this principle has been applicable to fruit destined for canning purposes and to cotton. Although it has not yet been implemented, the NMC has recommended a similar committee in regard to chicory.

In order to help producers decide what products, and how much of a product, should be produced, the Wheat Board, the Maize Board and the Oil-Seed Board provide producers with price scenarios even before the planting season.

In regard to restrictive registration, commercially a very sensitive matter, let me say the following. To facilitate entry to the industries, restrictive registration in regard to the following industries has been lifted and replaced by a system of formal registration: Cotton-ginners, tobacco processors, fresh-milk distributors, industrial milk manufacturers, fruit-canners, rooibos tea packers, flour-millers and processors of wheat products, except in the case of standardised bread. This exception is chiefly the result of the relevant Government subsidy.

When we therefore phase out the subsidy, we shall also have to take a very careful look at this restrictive registration, because there is a certain degree of infrastructure incorporated in this, and if one has to abolish it, it will have to be done in such a way that it does not lead to disruption. Restrictive registration has also been abolished in the case of oil-seed crushers which deal with oil-seed as a business.

In regard to less Government intervention, let me say the following. The regulations promulgated in terms of the Egg Production Control Act have been amended so that production units of 7 500 laying hens have been exempted from permit control. Previously the figure was a mere 2 000. Even now the Wool Board is investigating the privatisation of activities relating to objective measurement. The Deciduous Fruit Board is holding consultations with its producers with a view to transferring its marketing function to a private company.

In regard to the National Marketing Council’s recommendations that agricultural marketing boards such as the Potato Board, the Dry Bean Board, the Dried Fruit Board, the Canning Fruit Board, the Oil-Seed Control Board, the Deciduous Fruit Board and the Wool Board, which are directly involved in activities relating to production research, should consider privatising these services, let me say the following. I also want to point out to the National Marketing Council that these recommendations link up with the envisaged Agricultural Research Council and should be taken further when the relevant council becomes a reality.

After having concluded its investigation, in line with its terms of reference, the National Marketing Council pointed out that if its recommendations were accepted and implemented, this would result in a structural change to agricultural marketing in the RSA. In this regard the National Marketing Council wants to point out that the marketing arrangements of the Wool Board are already being investigated by a committee, appointed by the Minister, with a view to establishing, inter alia, a structure with less Government intervention.

With the Minister’s approval, the Mohair Board has already asked to have certain of its functions transferred to a company in terms of the mohair scheme. The Minister has already granted approval for the administrations of the Tobacco Board and Sentabak to be incorporated in one body. The Potato Board has already nominated a committee to investigate the potato scheme with a view to its possible privatisation.

This is a report of the marketing council, which contains a resume of campaigns undertaken with a view to making marketing systems in South Africa more market-orientated and less regulatory, and the movement is in progress. I think we are making good progress in this regard—not only to the benefit of the South African producer, but also to the benefit of the consumer, because the marketing scheme is not only there to give farmers greater stability, the marketing scheme also performing a very important function, that of facilitating this interdependence between producer and consumer that my hon colleague spoke about.

At a later stage I shall advance figures to indicate what share consumers and producers have in the consumer rand in South Africa, if we should compare this with the figures in any other country in the world—an indication, in fact clear proof, that our schemes in South Africa have been to the benefit of both the consumers and producers.

Now I come to individual speeches. The hon member for Fauresmith made a very interesting speech. He specifically concentrated on agriculture’s task as a net earner of foreign exchange. Since we have had good yields this year, it is perhaps a very important subject to discuss because this year agriculture, in particular, will be earning approximately R3,9 billion in foreign exchange. On one facet I want to agree with the hon member. Since agriculture has the ability to earn foreign exchange for South Africa, this being a very scarce commodity—if one can call it a commodity; it is in fact a commodity if one wants to participate in international trade—we should actually evaluate—place a premium on— every rand in the form of foreign exchange. There are probably countries that do on such an evaluation, and I think that in South Africa the time has also come for us to evaluate the foreign exchange that agriculture earns for us.

Someone made some calculations and found that this year South African agriculture had the ability, by way of its exports, to neutralise a $20 decrease in the gold price. Agriculture therefore plays an important role in the South African economy. Let me say at once that if it were not for the policy that we have implemented over the past seven years, in spite of inflation, interest rates and high input costs, and the campaigns we have launched to stabilise agriculture with a view to keeping farmers on their land so that they could produce, we would not have had these results.

The hon member for Dysselsdorp delivered his customary, I almost want to say vociferous, speech about the land position for Coloureds in South Africa. He does not seem to be present at the moment. I just want to reply to him on certain aspects, however. The structuring and financing of agriculture in South Africa takes no cognisance of colour. South African agriculture, with the Land and Agricultural Bank—this is what the farmers call it—is there for all farmers. This year I examined the figures of the Land Bank. Assistance to and the financing of Coloured farmers have made considerable strides in the past year. The Land Bank will increasingly participate in the financing for Coloured farmers, as they develop themselves in the agriculture sphere.

There is a fixed policy about giving every prospective farmer in South Africa who farms efficiently and effectively, an opportunity to obtain land for agricultural purposes. That is Government policy. A task team was appointed to determine in what way this could be done. Last year the hon the State President appointed a committee, under the chairmanship of the then Minister of Agriculture of the House of Delegates, with the specific purpose of making land available to Indian farmers in Natal. My colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister, was also a member of that committee. I myself paid a visit to Natal this year, and I want to say at once that there are good Indian farmers. We must give them the opportunity to expand, to obtain more land, because they are excellent vegetable farmers. At present this matter is receiving attention.

The hon member also spoke about the wages of farm workers. I think that agriculture in South Africa is well known for always having treated its workers very well, also in the social context. The Rural Foundation is fast winning ground. I want to encourage hon members to promote this Foundation as widely as possible amongst producers, because these people do very good work.

I have already replied, in large part, to the hon member for Mooi River. He briefly referred to the fact that if we were to establish a commission of enquiry, we should not appoint people to that commission who had a direct interest. I think the hon member was referring to the Grove Committee. I specifically appointed Dr Grove to carry out this particular investigation, and it is also important, because one cannot simply appoint a commission consisting of people from outside the particular industry. One must also appoint people to that commission who have a particular knowledge of the industry. That is also why I nominated, amongst others, the chairman of the Meat Board, who is an absolute authority when it comes to meat. We cannot deny that.

That commission’s reports are, in any event, evaluated by the National Marketing Council and my department before I make any pronouncements. I myself have experts in the marketing board who examine these matters.

I think I have replied to the hon member for North Coast on the question of the hormone herbicide problem.

The hon member for Lichtenburg, in his customary fashion, made a very critical speech. Let me also say that I like such speeches. I like it when someone, by way of a critical speech, analyses the position of agriculture in great depth. I think the hon member did so this morning, and therefore it is a pleasure for me to react to his statements, notwithstanding the fact that the speech was critical. We try to examine, on a regular basis, macro-economic trends in agriculture in South Africa. Hon members will know that we have people who work out these statistics for us.

Agriculture’s gross farming revenue for 1988, as the hon member probably knows, is R15 366 million. That is important, because it matches the agricultural debt of R14 000 million much more closer, which was not the case during the previous year and the year before that. In other words, the gross farming revenue is now beginning to exceed the agricultural debt. Already that is a very good sign, but it does not yet solve all the problems. It is, however, a sign that there is some improvement.

It is also noticeable that agriculture’s net farming revenue in the past three years or so is tending to increase more rapidly than the gross farming revenue, ie the turnover. This is proof that the increase in the NFR is being obtained by making use of proportionally less input. This consequently improves the productivity in South Africa.

Farmers have learnt to use fewer inputs—which are expensive—more effectively. With these figures we can therefore say that the productivity of agriculture is improving. The efficiency of the South African farmer is improving. This is the way in which the South African farmer in entrenching himself, steeling himself against inflation and interest rates.

The hon member for Heilbron also said that one could not divorce agricultural economics from the rest of the South African economy. That is why he is closely involved and why it is so difficult for the South African farmer to maintain his position in these difficult circumstances.

The ratio of net farming revenue to gross farming revenue is also a very important criterion that one can use to measure agriculture’s profitability. The all-time low we reached in 1983 meant that it was a terribly difficult year for agriculture. The situation improved considerably and the figure was 35% in 1988. It is almost back to the 1980-81 levels. Hon members will remember that 1980-81, particularly in the summer-grain areas, was one of the best years ever for agriculture.

What I am therefore trying to tell the hon member is that although agriculture is still experiencing pressing problems, the position at the macro-level is improving.

I agree, however, that if one were to look at the micro-level and single out particular commodities, there would be certain commodities for which the exchange ratio is very problematic at the moment. One of these relates to the grain industry. Its exchange ratio is not yet what it ought to be.

That is why we are engaged in all kinds of possible campaigns to improve this situation. At a later stage I shall come back to the speech of the hon member for Delmas. He made a very unsavoury speech. If the hon member for Delmas wants to talk about structural change, he must know what it is.

Structural change does not simply mean land conversion. Structural change in agriculture covers a much wider field. It includes the marketing. It also entails changes to systems of production within farming systems. Structural change also involves service campaigns, one’s servicing structure in agriculture. All our campaigns to place agricultural research within the ambit of an agricultural research council are indicative of structural change. Agriculture is a very wide field indeed; it does not consist only of farmers. I am glad the hon member read the speech I made during last year’s debate, and he really does not need to denigrate me. The policy I put forward for South African agriculture last year is also embodied in this document issued by the SA Agricultural Union, ie a Strategic Plan for Sound Agricultural Development in South Africa. The hon member should do himself a favour and read it. It is therefore not the Minister of Agriculture’s policy that the hon member was reading. It was the SA Agricultural Union’s policy which I tried to present to him in the debate last year. He is now trying to denigrate it.

He made another statement, however, to which I take the strongest exception, and that was that I only work for the large business undertakings. The hon member is free to say that to the CP farmers out there. They really would not believe him. They would not believe him. Not even farmers in his own area would believe him. [Interjections.] I have devoted my entire public life to agriculture. I built up the co-operative movements amongst farmers, and the hon member knows what movements I am referring to. It was my task to obtain a negotiating position for agriculture in South Africa and for the South African farmer, by way of the co-operative movement, a position that all farmers in South Africa can be proud of today! [Interjections.] We are continuing to develop the co-operative movement for the sake of the South African farmer and agriculture.

Mr Chairman, it is a great privilege to speak after the hon the Minister. I want to assure the hon the Minister that hon members on this side of the House do not believe the hon member for Lichtenburg either. In fact, we greatly appreciate the manner in which the hon the Minister is dealing with agriculture in South Africa.

I want to share a few thoughts on the Directorate: Veterinary Services, with special reference to tuberculosis and brucellosis in cattle. This is a very important section of the Department of Agriculture because its first aim is to promote animal health. It is also important because certain animal diseases also affect human health. Two of the most important diseases are tuberculosis or consumption and brucellosis or contagious abortion in cattle. Since these diseases are extremely contagious and place human beings at great risk, it is of the utmost importance that they be strictly controlled. Control of the diseases is based on the elimination of infected animals because in practice infected animals cannot be cured successfully. The State-aided schemes are based on certain test programmes which often did not function as one would have wished in the past because of limited funds and manpower. The implementation of the tuberculosis scheme regulations on 1 October 1988 legalised the functioning of the scheme in terms of the Animal Diseases Act. These regulations also give the Directorate more powers in order to combat the disease. It even authorises the Directorate to enforce the testing of herds when necessary.

A second very important event was the granting of approval for the implementation of a levy fund which will partially finance the operation of the tuberculosis and brucellosis schemes. Such a scheme for a levy fund on dairy products will be instituted one of these days. Essentially this means that the owner of an infected herd will “pay” for the testing of his herd which will be done on a regular basis. The costs will be defrayed by means of a levy on his milk.

This is not only advantageous to the dairy producer, but also to the rural veterinary surgeon who will be involved in the testing programme. I want to express the hope that such a levy scheme will also be implemented in our meat industry, since we will not succeed in eliminating the disease if we do not extend our efforts to cover the whole spectrum of our cattle population.

Brucellosis and all its hazards are at present a greater problem for us than tuberculosis. The incidence of brucellosis is at present 1,5%, as opposed to tuberculosis which has an incidence of only 0,05%. The disease is also transferred to human beings through contact with infected animals or the use of dairy products from infected animals. The symptoms of the illness in human beings are high fever, listlessness and a general lack of energy. It is known as Malta fever and in many cases a person is not even aware of the fact that he is suffering from this disease. It is a bothersome disease which is very detrimental to the sufferer’s productivity. What is more, the disease is incurable and can merely be suppressed by means of drastic antibiotic treatment.

This is also the problem with cattle. Control of the disease is based on the immunisation of all heifers before the age of eight months with a strain 19 live vaccine. The immunisation gives the animal a resistance which prevents abortions, but unfortunately does not safeguard the animal against actual infection by the disease; in other words it does not prevent the disease from spreading.

I have personal experience of that. For 30 years my herd was clear, and for 30 years I vaccinated all my heifers. Nevertheless, I discovered one day that the disease had attacked my herd. That infection could have attacked my herd in one way only and that was because of a careless neighbour.

That is why we have to apply a system of effective elimination of all infected animals. When looking at the statistics we find that we have made a lot of progress in exercising control over these two diseases. Our control measures have simply not succeeded in finally eliminating the diseases. Therefore I particularly welcome these new test schemes and I should like to congratulate the Directorate: Veterinary Services and the South African Agricultural Union on the new initiatives they have instituted in this regard. As I have said, I hope they will go further and also extend the scheme to the meat industry so that we can test the entire cattle population on a regular basis. This will ensure the general health not only of our herds, but also of human beings.

Mr Chairman, I must thank you for accommodating me as I have been involved with the other Committee debating the Defence Vote. I missed out on the first and second slot while running up and down. I am very grateful.

Last year I praised the hon the Minister and his Deputy for assisting our hon Minister in the House of Delegates. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must lower their voices if they have to converse at all. The hon member for Umzinto may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The Ministry of Local Government and Agriculture in the House of Delegates should be scrapped as it has no skilled staff, no machinery, no know-how, no muscle, no might and—most important—no money. Therefore it is meaningless and I repeat it should be scrapped. It is a burden to the taxpayers of our country. We should have one Ministry and if an Indian is required to serve in this Ministry he should be given the portfolio of Deputy Minister and trained.

I have the greatest respect for this hon Minister and his Deputy. They have done a lot for Indian agriculture in that they have spent many manhours flying to Indian areas, trying to identify land and also conducting inspections after floods, and so forth. Even my offer of genuine home-made curry and rice did not deter them or persuade them to relax. They were on the move from morning till night and I am very grateful to them. These two hon gentlemen and their department have the interests of Indian agriculture at heart.

At one time we used to buy carrots at 10 cents a bunch. Recently the price has escalated to 50 cents a bunch. [Interjections.] However, in the House of Delegates the carrots are put on auction to the highest bidder and may at times fetch as much as R300 000. I will come back to this little story.

We have operated this own affairs concept for nearly five years and what have we achieved? Sweet nothing! The hon the State President appointed a Cabinet committee to identify land for Indian agriculture. I, too, identified land where a White man was prepared to sell to the House of Delegates in my constituency. A lot of money has been spent, land has been identified and feasibility studies have been conducted.

However, in June last year I was told that the House of Delegates had no structures and that these still had to be set up. By this I understand that the House of Delegates has no power to purchase agricultural land. All that I can say is that we put the cart before the horse—it was an exercise in futility. We had no part in drawing up the latest Constitution, Act 110 of 1983, and we have not been told about its limitations. However, when it was discovered that the House of Delegates could not buy land for housing, a Bill was hurriedly ushered through Parliament, enabling the House of Delegates to buy land for housing.

The question I want to pose is: Why was a Bill not passed simultaneously for the purchasing of agricultural land? Is it because dealing in land for housing is more lucrative and that it is a money-spinner to some people who are lining their pockets? This whole situation is absurd, to say the least.

For the sake of progress and prosperity sanity must prevail and a start must be made to dismantle this tricameral system. The own affairs concept for agriculture should be scrapped forthwith. Money is being wasted on an empty and hollow portfolio which cold be used for a more meaningful purpose. To substantiate what I am saying, I wish to quote an editorial in The Argus. The heading reads “Own Affairs ‘Threat’”. I quote:

Mr Chairman, I am not attacking this Ministry. As I said in my opening remarks, I have the highest respect and regard for these hon gentlemen and their department. However it is the system that is wrong and this is what we have to tackle. From this very moment I have no further intention of taking part in any own affairs debates. I suppose this is no surprise, because some hon members are never there. I spent a lot of man-hours burning the midnight oil, researching and reading to enable me to take part in a reasonable standard of debate, but where does it all end up? It is all resting in peace in the Hansard. The system is what is basically wrong and that is what has to be dealt with.

I said that I would return to the little story of the carrots. I believe the House of Delegates is an institution where dog is eating dog. I use these words as an expression and not in any derogatory terms.

This House has become a laughing stock. Although there is never a dull moment it is engaged in a numbers game and it appears that it will continue to play that game. The own affairs concepts has served its purpose and is overstaying its welcome.

Order! I regret that I cannot allow the hon member to discuss constitutional matters, namely the concepts of own affairs or general affairs, in this debate under this Vote. The hon member must confine himself to the Vote.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I believe that what I am saying has something to do with agriculture and the shortage of land and the inability of the House of Delegates to purchase agricultural land for Indian farmers.

I believe the own affairs concept has served its purpose and is overstaying its welcome. We in Parliament are men, not mice. We have sat in joint debates in the Parliamentary buildings and the Parliamentary buildings have not collapsed and the skies have not fallen.

Order! I am afraid that that has got nothing to do with the Vote under discussion.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, I certainly find it a privilege to participate in this debate on agriculture for the simple fact that there is a very large number of farmers registered as voters in my constituency. [Interjections.] I therefore find it a privilege from that point of view. Before I move on to agricultural matters, permit me this brief comment. Yesterday afternoon a rugby match took place at the Noordoos-Randse Hoër-skool. The result of that match by way of a management council election was: The CP eight and the NP nil.

Order! I have to point out to the hon member for Losberg that this has nothing to do with this debate.

Mr Chairman, I respect your ruling.

I should like to make a few comments on the thoughts expressed by the hon member for Caledon on the subject of the bread price. He compared the bread price in South Africa with that overseas and particularly with that in Europe. He drew certain conclusions from this, inter alia that our bread price was much lower than that in Europe. Of course, this is a comparison which cannot be made just like that without taking the weakened rand exchange rate value into account. Let me remind the hon member of one specific example. In 1980 a loaf of bread cost between two and two and a half marks—a little more—in Germany. If one looks at the bread price in Germany today and compares it with the rand exchange rate value, a loaf of bread costs between R3 and R4 in Germany today—in rand terms.

That does not mean anything!

That does not say anything! It says something about the comparison which the hon member for Caledon drew as regards the bread price? His comparison says nothing because he does not take weakened rand exchange rate values into consideration.

You are a member of the legal fraternity; you know nothing about economy!

Mr Chairman, that hon member knows nothing about the rand exchange rate value and how one can draw comparisons in this regard. [Interjections.] In the third place … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members are to give the hon member for Losberg a chance.

The hon member for Caledon talks about ignorance but I say to him again that he knows absolutely nothing about the exchange rate value of the rand and about comparisons which may be drawn in this regard. The comparison will not wash because this is a comparison which does not hit the mark as it does not take the exchange rate value of the rand into account. He does not follow the argument and that is why he adopts this standpoint. [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to refer to a speech of the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development. I am referring to the version of his speech which appeared in Hansard as well as in a report in yesterday’s Die Burger. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon the Minister whether it is his department’s standpoint which was expressed by the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development in that farm workers could obtain a residence servitude on a farm. In yesterday’s report in Die Burger there was something different from what appears in Hansard. Something had been added and left me with the impression that the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development had gone further than he was reported in Hansard and had added something. I shall quote from the report in Die Burger: “Plaaswerkers kan uiteindelik eiendoms-reg bekom”. This must be read in context.

In the first place, farm workers can obtain a residence servitude on a farm according to this. The hon the Minister must tell us what this means. Does it mean that the farmer will be bound to provide his farm workers with a servitude and, if the farm is alienated, does he have to honour that residence servitude or not?

What does this mean regarding the dismissal of farm workers? Does it mean that he can no longer dismiss them or that he can dismiss them although a residence servitude has been given?

Is this a residence servitude which will be registered at a deeds office or are the words “residence servitude” being used casually in this regard?

What are you going to do with it when you know?

We want to tell farmers in the election what the NP understands by this. [Interjections.]

You are not coming back!

The hon member need not be afraid of that; my majority over the NP was far too great for that last time. [Interjections.] The hon member does not know what my majority was. [Interjections.]

Order!

Further in the report in Die Burger one finds the next significant sentence: “Die huisvestingsnood van plaaswerkers is deur dr Van Niekerk en die boere van Ceres aangepak nadat dit geblyk het dat die Regering nie oor geld beskik om die boere te help nie.” The hon the Minister must tell us whether the reason furnished here by the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development is correct. Is it correct that the Government does not have the money to assist farmers? If that is the case, we want to know whether any discussions whatsoever were held beforehand between the Minister concerned and the hon the Minister of Agriculture on the subject.

We want to know because there is an election at hand and we want to tell the farmers what the NP mean when they say that farm workers will obtain a residence servitude on farms and say in the next sentence that farm workers will ultimately also be able to obtain property rights. Does this mean that that residence servitude can develop and become stronger and that those farm workers can ultimately obtain property rights on that same farm?

Then the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development said—one could almost say that he held a speech on agriculture— that the first development of this nature would take place in his own constituency of Ceres at Op-Die-Berg.

The hon the Minister must explain this system to us in detail as well as the consequences which I have pointed out regarding a residence servitude. Is it a real right? Is it a personal right? [Interjections.] Is it a right which is to be honoured if the farm is to be sold? We are at the eve of an election and we demand the right to tell farmers what the Government envisages in this regard. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Losberg is putting questions to the hon the Minister. The hon the Minister will reply to them in due course. The hon member must be given an opportunity to make his speech. The hon member may proceed. Unfortunately the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, while I was listening to the hon member for Losberg, whom I had to follow up, I almost felt like making no reference to him. He is thinking of elections while we are trying to solve the problems of agriculture. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister will react to these questions he asked. All I want to say to him is that surely one takes land somewhere, on which one is able to accommodate people, in the case of any township development. Should one in the end accommodate all the farmworkers in town so that they can be given ownership, or is there some other way of doing it.

There are many ways.

The hon the Minister will spell out that particular way. But the hon member regards any positive deed on the part of this Government—as is the case with everything in agriculture—in a negative light and he tries to turn it into a political issue, to the detriment of this country and of agriculture. I take it amiss of him for not seeking the positive aspects in anything, but always seeking only what is negative and blazoning it abroad, as he will no doubt do in his next speech. [Interjections.] It is true. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister has replied to quite a number of the previous speakers. I should just like to refer to a few aspects which the hon member for Humansdorp mentioned in his speech. He referred to certain animal diseases and the steps the State had taken to combat them. I think what he said emphasised how important Onderstepoort is in our entire South African farming community, and what important work they are doing there. He indicated how difficult it was to combat a disease which could not simply be diagnosed at first glance and which had after-effects, not only for the farmer and the animal, but also for the consumer. He recounted how in the end we had arrived at a scheme which in my opinion works very well and which deals positively with the problem. This is being done to such an extent that I think we are nearing the end of this disease if we are able to implement these plans. I thank the hon member for the fine words he spoke.

If Onderstepoort had not been there our animal production would probably not have been what it is today. With 7% of Africa’s livestock population we are producing 20% of Africa’s meat. With only 4% of Africa’s milch cows, we are producing 8% of Africa’s milk. I think this is indeed a fine achievement.

When we examine the two diseases mentioned by the hon member a little more closely, we find that they are important because they do not only have an effect on the farmer, but also on the consumer. Approximately 10% of the herds tested in 1975 were contaminated with brucellosis. At present it is only 1,3%, which therefore shows a great decrease. In 1969 approximately 0,6% of the herds tested were contaminated with tuberculosis. Today it affects only, 04% of the herds. We have made great progress in this direction.

What about mastitis?

That is a different problem which does not have such a direct effect on the health of people as TB and brucellosis. It has other effects and is a directly discernible disease.

This fund which we have established has therefore contributed a great deal to the farmers themselves contributing to the eradication of the diseases in the end by simply paying a levy. It is being planned to test at least 30% of the beef cattle herds in the country within the next five years. If we can receive funding similar to that for milk-producing cattle in respect of beefproducing cattle, it will be possible to move this target forward considerably. Our ultimate goal is to expand it. I want to thank the farmers for their co-operation in solving this problem.

I should like to mention another aspect as well, which other hon members did not mention here, but which cannot be allowed to go unnoticed owing to the effect it could have if the State did not react to it effectively. I am referring to the locust plague which we have had since last year. I mentioned it on another occasion, but I think it is a good thing to mention it again. Owing to the droughts and floods we have experienced recently we have almost begun to co-exist with disasters. If we had done nothing about these locust plagues a great disaster would also have struck parts of our field and animal husbandry areas.

The locusts increased after the good rains last year and problems were experienced in large areas of our country. We set an eradication programme in motion, and in the process we have between last year and now eradicated 83 000 swarms of hoppers and more than 9 000 swarms of flying locusts. Some of these swarms were 19 km wide and between 60 and 65 km long. These are large surface areas.

At one stage approximately a quarter of the drier areas in the North-West were covered in locusts. It was not an easy operation, but I think it was one of our effective operations. The swarms did not move into the traditional plant husbandry areas. I can also say that in June, as usual, we will hold another locust conference at which all the persons involved will meet to refine and improve this operation.

I am mentioning this because we arrived at a principle in respect of locust control. It does not become the sole responsibility of the State, but the State’s responsibility stops at the farmer’s gate. The farmer will also have to play his part. In the process it means that we shall have to make equipment and poison available to the farmers on a controlled basis. I can only say, in reply to the controversy which has arisen concerning the application of pesticide to our veld, which is very sensitive in this respect, that we are moving away from the long-lasting pesticides which have an effect on man and beast, to short-life substances which do not have such a long-term effect. In this respect I can say that the DHC supplies have been used up and that we do not have any more DHC at all, nor do we intend to reduce or utilise it again. We shall therefore be working with better pesticides which do not have such an effect.

A great deal is being written about the pollution aspect and the so-called danger to people in town as a result of the use of toxic substances in the rural area. Spraying toxic substances on plants and on the soil has a diluting effect. The quantity of poison absorbed by the animal through the plants and which accumulates in its body is very small. The problem arises with the misapplication of these poisons, such as when animals are dipped and they absorb the poisons through skin contact. That practice is no longer being applied. There are still people who confuse these two aspects. We are very strict about this not happening.

While I am talking about animals, there is another important development that has taken place during the past few years, and I think it is important for me to mention it here because it affects those of us who are interested in agriculture and who are involved in agriculture in one way or another. This is the controversy which has arisen around the use and treatment of animals in experiments. Agriculture is dependent on the use of experimental animals for arriving at certain results, and so are our other industries. A controversy has arisen around this aspect. I do not think that any person who really examines his own conscience is insensitive to an animal being mistreated. That is why neither I, the hon the Minister, nor the Government has any sympathy whatsoever with people who deliberately mistreat animals and subject them to circumstances which could have been avoided. That is why we try to prevent these circumstances in an orderly way. The Cabinet Committee for constitutional development asked the Departments of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Health and Justice to give attention to this matter.

In the end it fell to the Department of Agricultural Economics to take the initiative in this connection. We tried to get the interest groups together. That, already, was not easy, because many of these interest groups were not interested only in the animals as such, but also in other circumstances and they had other motives. However, we succeeded in doing so. We got the interest groups together, including the animal protection societies, the Society against the Painful Experiments on Animals, the Animal Anti-Cruelty League, the Committee of University Principals, the Private Research Laboratories and the State Organisations. They met in April 1988 to reflect on these circumstances.

During this meeting guidelines were drawn up according to which all organisations must handle experimental animals. These drafts were subsequently submitted to all the organisations for further comment. These comments were received and submitted to the committee for finalisation. Consequently this represents inputs by everyone involved in this matter.

The final meeting took place recently on 19 April. Therefore the final guidelines are now being compiled and will soon be presented to me, after which I shall refer all these guidelines back to all the organisations concerned for signature so that they can give their consent to the implementation of these guidelines.

The question arises whether—I am referring to such guidelines that one must use—one could do this by means of a law or whether one should have them implemented on the basis of a voluntary endorsement. I think if we try to enforce something by means of a law, without cooperation, history has shown that if one does not have co-operation under the law, it is no use putting the rules in the Statute Book. We should rather support the idea of implementing these measures by means of voluntary co-operation, because the Animal Protection Act is still there to deal with these circumstances, and if the incorrect utilisation and the abuse of animals occur under these guidelines, these people can be prosecuted under the Animal Protection Act.

I am briefly discussing the guidelines that have been laid down. These entail the establishment of experimental animal control committees at every organisation at which experimental animals are kept. This includes the State and its training centres. These committees will consist of persons with expertise, namely researchers, veterinarians and representatives from outside— that is to say—the animal protection organisations. The standards for the capture, transportation and keeping in captivity of experimental animals will also be laid down. The pre-assessment of research projects will be done by this committee to determine whether the projects are of real importance and whether experimental animals are in any way essential for that purpose, in other words whether there are no alternative methods and—if necessary—what the minimum number of animals considered for that purpose will be.

The continual monitoring of experiments is just as important. The right of these experimental animal control committees to terminate an experiment if animals are being exposed to unnecessary pain and suffering is essential. The keeping of full records is therefore also necessary. These are a few aspects of the guidelines. These action committees will meet regularly and monitor the entire process. The committee also feels strongly that we should in the end establish a national council for the control of organisations working with experimental animals. I support such an idea that we must have co-ordination in that respect.

It may perhaps be that some people think these guidelines have no potency but the Animal Protection Act is a further supporting aspect here. The important point, however, is that with every organisation engaged in experiments one therefore has a person from outside who represents the animal protection organisations and who therefore has access to the experiments to see whether these animals are being maltreated. I hope that we will solve many of our problems with these guidelines.

I should also like to mention a few aspects which hon members raised here. When I consider the controversy which has arisen around the acquisition of land, and if we were today to remove all restrictions in this country, it still would not mean that the problem would be solved.

If, in my own White community, I consider people who want to take up farming, surely I realise that it is not easy to take up farming today. [Interjections.] No, very well, the point remains that there are many White men who are in a far better financial position in respect of security, but who also want to take up farming and are unable to do so. The point remains that in today’s economic circumstances one either has to inherit a farm or one has to marry a wife who owns a farm. That is really the only way in which one can acquire a farm today.

You are therefore justifying it?

No, I am not justifying it. I am just considering the circumstances as they are and as they apply today, and they are an economic reality. [Interjections.] I simply do not want to argue the way the CPs argue—backwards into the past. We have a given set of circumstances today. There is a need in the various communities in respect of agricultural land, and we must deal with it. We are tackling it in a meaningful way, at the request of the House of Delegates.

How many decades will it take?

No, the speed with which it will be dealt with will depend on how we succeed in identifying the problems. We would have progressed further along this road with the House of Delegates in respect of land if political circumstances had not handicapped us. The fact remains that there is a method here, and there is no other method.

Abolish the Group Areas Act!

The problems which arose in regard to the abolition of group areas are merely a superficial solution, which do not affect the essence of the real problem. Let us therefore have a discussion around the matter. That is also what we are doing. If we consider the problems we are solving in respect of this land issue, we have another approach which is available in the meantime, but which is not being applied. If I look at the Griqualand West area, where I come from, I find that there are no objections to the permit system in respect of land there. [Interjections.] The farmers’ unions of that area—the North West Cape Agricultural Union, stated explicitly that they would not make any objections when Coloured farmers went to buy farms there on a financial basis.

Then why is there a permit system? [Interjections.]

Of course it is there! The permit system, as has been explained, has a reverse value as well. If we make it available throughout, then the available land belonging to Coloureds, as a result of a stronger economic base on the White side, will disappear among the Coloureds as well. [Interjections.] That is the problem. It therefore has a protective effect. Let us consider this. [Interjections.] Hon members can go and take a look at the communities. The problem is not as simple as he is saying it is.

I want to raise a final standpoint in regard to what the hon member for Upington said about the development along the Lower Orange in respect of the creation of by-laws and the question of better medical services for Coloured communities.

My time is almost up and I would have preferred to react to this for longer, but if I consider what has happened along the Orange River from 1970 until the present, where we probably had some of the most difficult financial circumstances possible, and where we probably had among the poorest communities in this country, and I consider the progress which has been made with things such as the creation of community complexes, and the function the farmers are fulfilling in that process—I am not saying it is a 100% correct and quite perfect; I am merely looking at the direction in which things are moving—I can only say that in future we can accelerate and improve this process even further.

With the advent of regional services councils, on which the various communities can identify their needs better, I think that we can derive better benefit for everyone out of them. This is in fact one of the problems we had in the past, namely that there was no communication between the communities to make co-operation and co-ordination between agriculture, the worker and the towns really meaningful. In conclusion I just want to say that in this respect there is really great hope for the future.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he cannot give me the assurance that the land of the Neus-Augrabies project is going to be divided up equally among Coloured and White farmers. That was the original decision.

If I remember correctly, this development arose out of the need to enlarge and develop the old canal systems. To make this justifiable we are creating additional irrigation land, of which the largest portion is available to Coloured farmers, but we are also doing so in order to stabilise certain smaller units for White farmers. The only problem is that it cannot all be made available immediately.

The dilemma we find ourselves in is that the farmers do not know what to produce on that irrigation land, because there is already an overproduction of virtually all the products they are able to produce. They cannot produce maize or wheat. Sultanas are a product which takes a long time to come into production. Lucerne contains an element of risk. In other words, as the farmers develop, become established and expand, the greatest portion will, in the end, fall into the hands of Coloured farmers because the need there is great.

If one subdivides 5 600 ha, 600 ha is not the largest portion of that amount of land.

Yes, but that is what I tried to explain. When an irrigation scheme is being developed, the entire area is not thrown open immediately. One must begin at a certain point, as the land becomes available, the farmers are farming and there are farmers who are able to do so, they can get more land, but it is still a problem.

There are enough farmers.

I know, but there are not enough farmers to do so in one go. That is why we are doing it on a facet basis as we are able to afford it—this is important—and as it is possible to assimilate the scheme into the economy in an orderly way.

Mr Chairman, it is a great privilege for me to be speaking after the hon the Deputy Minister. When I listen to him, I always think of an anecdote which the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and of Water Affairs told me. It is often very hectic at breakfast time, and one morning when he dished up a plate of porridge in the presence of one of his grandchildren and quickly closed his eyes before he began to eat, his grandchild asked him: “Grandpa, does one also pray for porridge?” When I listen to the hon the Deputy Minister, I always think that it is not necessary to pray for him, because he is good enough.

Before I begin, I want to take this opportunity also to say thank you very much to the hon the Minister of Agriculture for his service to agriculture during the past year. Those of us who come from the North and often find ourselves in the storm and stress of droughts and structural changes are only too aware of what has happened with regard to agriculture during the past six and a half years, since he became Minister. In fact, there has been a complete change not only with regard to the structures of agriculture, but also with regard to the attitude of the agriculturalists in South Africa. These changes have taken place with regard to the products themselves and the marketing of them, and for that we say thank you very much.

I also want to express a sincere word of thanks to the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. If one looks at this department’s annual report, one sees something at the beginning which did not appear in the previous annual reports, and that is a mission which the department set for itself, according to which it would like to work. If one compares it further with the annual report of the previous year, one sees that Mr Harry Hattingh is the new Director-General. We trust that these initiatives came about under his leadership. We also trust that if a goal was set here, there must undoubtedly also be objectives with regard to the different subsections. We would like to hear about those at some time.

If one looks at the appropriation of this department, one notices that only 4,7% of the money of this operational sector is really being utilised for production and marketing.

We as laymen would like to see this expanded and would like to see how they formulate the way in which they intend to manage the department in the future.

One also notices in this annual report that the department administers approximately 24 laws. If one looks at the headings or the titles and the dates on which these laws were adopted, one wonders whether they still correspond to the agriculture of the year 2000 and to what we are doing at the moment, and whether or not one should place them under the microscope.

I would like to base my speech on the report of the committee of inquiry into alternative marketing arrangements for maize, the so-called Simon Brand Committee. I want to do so with great circumspection, because I know that the Government and the National Marketing Board are still considering certain recommendations made by this Brand Committee.

However, I want to thank the hon the Minister for the initiative which he showed in the establishment of this committee. I think it was timely and necessary. I also want to express my thanks to the chairman of this committee, Dr Simon Brand himself, who had to succeed in reconciling truly conflicting interests which existed or still exist among these three major industries, in terms of the recommendations of this report. Furthermore, I want to say that he acted with great dignity throughout.

I am convinced that this report opens new horizons and paves the way for an evolutionary movement towards a totally new concept of grain marketing in the Republic of South Africa and of our surplus products abroad. In fact, an essential change in the management of grain marketing in South Africa is being proposed here, not only with regard to grain marketing itself, but also with regard to the management of it.

I do not want to deal with the entire report, but I want to draw a few conclusions with regard to how it affects these different parties so that one will be able to gain perspective with regard to what the responsibility of the State is and how one should judge the recommendations made to the State.

With regard to these industries, the large responsibility which is being placed on them by this report lies in the fact that they have to continue to expand and protect this single-channel system in a responsible way and that grain sorghum must also return to a form of single-channel marketing. That is not all. This single-channel system must be managed in the future in such a way that it will truly be able to meet the demands of the day. In other words, really dynamic management is being expected of marketing boards as well in the future.

It is also recommended that all grain intended for fodder and export be marketed in a co-ordinated way in the future; initially by means of mutual co-operation, and thereafter by means of a joint marketing body and ultimately by one grain board. This can also lead to the development of a trading platform for grains in South Africa. Those are the three things on which the industries rest.

If one looks at the reaction of the industries so far, one sees that this has been very positively received by both the grain sorghum and the maize industries and the decisions in that regard were virtually in keeping with the report. Wheat had certain reservations, but they agree on the basic point of departure that there should be a form of co-ordination between the marketing of grains for fodder and the marketing of grains for export.

A responsibility also rests on the producers, which has already been accepted by them to a large degree, particularly the maize producers, with the implementation of these new marketing guidelines and the operation of, for example, the Maize Board from 1 May 1987. According to the guidelines which the hon the Minister has laid down, the entire maize industry must become more market orientated. The maize farmers themselves must take the decisions with regard to their industry and so on. The report confirms this and he grants his approval in this regard.

He also goes further and recommends that this single-channel system should be implemented nationwide and that it should also lead to new A and B areas. In these new B areas different types of marketing arrangements and levies can apply. This rests with the producers. This is a considerable change in the pattern which has always been followed in this country, namely that the Government as such has been responsible for these industries.

In the future that responsibility must be shouldered by the producers themselves. In the third place, he also addresses the responsibility of the State and mentions three aspects in that regard. I do not want to discuss all three of them; I shall merely refer briefly to them, namely that the issues are those of the financing of the strategic grain stock, assistance in disaster conditions to producers or consumers and specifically a very important aspect, namely that the negative balances in the Maize Board and Grain Sorghum Stabilisation Fund should be redeemed by the State. This is an incisive recommendation and a great deal of money is involved. I know that it is an extremely sensitive matter because other industries could also stand in the queue when decisions are made in this regard.

I just want to say today that I was a part of that old system. The Maize Board was presented with an established fact, without the producer or consumer having been consulted, and the following was said: “Money has been borrowed to negotiate a higher price for the producer in a specific year on the one hand, and on the other, to prevent the price of the consumer from increasing too much.” That has been repeated for three years. Therefore, the fact that neither the producer nor the consumer participated in this decision, is inter alia the one factor which was responsible for that debt, namely the loan component of it, which was forced upon us and we had no share in it. Other factors were added later, for example, export losses and so on. I want to make an appeal to the Government today to consider this recommendation favourably.

There is a final matter which is touched on by this report. It relates to the whole question of our relations with the TBVC countries and the self-governing states. It is true that, with regard to the BLS countries, we do not have problems with regard to co-ordinated marketing. A Customs Union Agreement exists. With regard to the TBVC countries, each one has, to a large degree, its own type of marketing system and some of these countries have even gone so far as to import grain from other countries of their own accord. Otherwise we have open borders and there is therefore no real control over the flow of grain between these areas.

That report and the Brand Committee could not go so far as to spell out the modus operandi which should be followed. However, negotiations with this interstate committee were held with regard to how this matter should be implemented. The willingness of these countries was indicated during these discussions in that they were prepared to work together in a future system. However, this has not yet been spelt out in detail.

I want to appeal today to our Government, the hon the Minister and the Deputy Minister to hold these discussions as soon as possible so that order can be brought to the whole question of marketing in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister spoke about economical farming. I would like him today to qualify who and what economical farming is. What kind of farming does one practise if one owns 300 head of cattle and 1 500 poultry? Profits on farming have been very poor and uncertain during the past few years. Agricultural debt has placed great pressure on the Government and on the farmer. In some cases the debt has increased further to an average of R200 000 for each farmer. White farmers are struggling at the moment to practise agriculture in a profitable manner while damage on farms is being limited by the Government.

Agriculture plays a very important role in regional development. The 70 000 farming enterprises in South Africa make a very large contribution to regional development. The requirements of this development increase the general living standards through housing, family planning and education. The latter development in the Gordonia region is disappointing to the House of Representatives. If the RSA wishes to achieve its agricultural aims, we should not restrict agriculture and even less place it in isolation. All the population groups should be included in this department, even our independent and self-governing states. I wish to recommend the following and ask that it also be applicable to Brown farmers: The improvement of production to adjust to new marketing strategies, incentive measures for improved marketing, incentive measures for agricultural extension, subsidies for the improvement of products and the integration with the macro-economic management the hon the Minister referred to.

The hon the Minister should not say to me again that agriculture is an own affair, because the hon the Minister in our House only administers this matter to cover up the disgraces.

Brown farmers find themselves in a difficult position. They are being paid retail prices, while their products are being sold at wholesale prices. They buy expensive land. Land prices are above market value. White farmers receive large-scale credit at their co-operatives, while Brown farmers get credit with difficulty. White farmers on the borders receive area subsidies; Brown farmers do not qualify for that. Droughts, pests and livestock services do pertain to Brown farmers. The changeable climate results in Brown farmers not being equal to the task of coping with certain setbacks.

The arrival of the Group Areas Act further promoted the selfishness and unfairness of White farmers. As our political rights were further diminished, we lost our claim to the industry. Agricultural unions and councils were subsequently established to acquire the sole monopoly in agriculture. Today we are a proud community who are only spectators, watching the agricultural game being played.

The hon the Deputy Minister said that the agricultural union of Griqualand West did not object to the permit system, but with reference to the draft resolution in connection with the moving of Kossies when Brown farmers would have been housed at the Owendale grounds, is the hon the Deputy Minister aware that the agricultural union of Postmasburg objected to that? Because of that this draft resolution was rejected. The hon the Deputy Minister also told us he would lose voters if this resolution of ours was implemented. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I do not want to praise the hon the Minister this afternoon, because it seems to me that it is the custom in this Chamber to praise someone when one is saying goodbye to them. I do not want to say goodbye to him this afternoon.

The Budget of the hon the Minister of Finance also affects agriculture. Will it show a socialist tendency—whereby artificial wealth is created for which we have to pay by way of loans and which will create inflation, the biggest enemy of the farmers in South Africa—or will expenditure be kept strictly within the limits of the revenue? The voters will now have to decide on this once and for all: Must the State fan inflation by spending R9,9 billion more than it has received and therefore, instead of rendering essential assistance to agriculture, inter alia, utilise the funds, namely 16% of the total Budget, to pay interest on debts—this year the State is spending 18% more than it is receiving—or must the State, like any household or farming industry that does not want to go bankrupt, take care not to exceed its revenue?

The State is neglecting its responsibility as far as the private sector is concerned and is interfering more and more with the total production of the country. This now also affects agriculture. From 1980 the State’s involvement has increased from 25% to 33%. The State is therefore growing faster than the private sector and, as a result, is depleting all the resources of the private sector by means of taxation. It is trying to raise its funds by means of taxation, and agriculture also has to bear the brunt. No wonder that one sees less and less initiative on the part of the private sector. Agriculturalists are worried about this direction in which the State has been going for the past decade.

As regards the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, the budget is by far the poorest we have seen over the past few years. For the past five years other State departments have been getting a larger share of the Budget, but agricultural economics is getting less and less. It seems to me as if the hon the Minister is totally overshadowed by his colleagues. He simply cannot negotiate in the Cabinet for his department any more. He must not blame me for having come to this conclusion. This department has to promote agricultural economics and marketing, inter alia. If, for example, the Department of Foreign Affairs’ funds have increased by 156% over the past five years, and this department’s funds have decreased by 52%, then something is seriously wrong as far as our agriculture is concerned. The goose that lays the golden egg is being totally disregarded.

Since we are now dealing with revenue and expenditure and since the hon the Minister of Finance has made concessions in respect of the tax on married women, I want to ask whether the hon the Minister can also work out a formula for the farmers’ wives who help their husbands faithfully and who perform their tasks on the farm with the utmost dedication and perseverance. Their contribution is in fact reflected by their husbands’ profits and taxes, but to date we have not yet been given a formula aimed at giving farmers’ wives their rightful place in respect of taxation. I appeal to the hon the Minister to discuss this matter with the hon the Minister of Finance.

Give us a suggestion. Tell us how.

Mr Chairman, if I were the Government, I would have said it. I would have given hon members an exact explanation. [Interjections.] Now, however, the Government has to explain it and I have to decide whether the explanation is right. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, this year the agricultural surplus was probably unprecedented. I am told that there are so many surplus potatoes on the markets now that they are actually being fed to animals. As regards wine, the KWV does not know what to do with all the full wine bottles that are not being emptied. [Interjections.] There has never been a wheat crop like the present one, and thousands of tons have to be exported. The second largest maize crop is now being expected, but where is this maize going to be stored? Will we ever be able to get rid of the surplus? And yet, in spite of all this abundance, farmers are having great difficulties. Even the very best of years cannot place agriculture on a successful, debt-free course. One reason for this is that the input costs are killing agriculture. They are killing it stone dead. No, Sir, we cannot go on like this. The co-operatives send one circular after another to their branches informing them that the price of this and that item is also going to be increased. In South Africa we have an increase of up to 30% per item per annum. Does the Government really want to make South Africa a socialist state? If so, let it go on like this. Let the inflation, the interest and the input costs keep on soaring. Soon we shall see everything go to rack and ruin because of the inability to protect and to act against the destructive elements in the field of agriculture. All the agricultural publications warn us about this. Hon members only have to page through them to see that every agricultural publication contains a letter or two asking where inflation is taking us. Every week there are articles warning us and also indicating that input costs are a deadly poison to the agricultural plant. How does the hon the Minister think the agricultural boat will be able to stay afloat if dangerous waves such as diesel prices which have increased by 60% in eight months …

Forty-eight!

Sir, since I am talking about diesel prices, I have been informed that in KwaNdebele a drum of 210 litres only costs co-operative members R90. However, if one buys it at the Eastern Transvaal Co-operative, which is not far from there, one has to pay R147. The farmers in the vicinity of KwaNdebele are very unhappy about this. I bring this matter to the hon the Minister’s attention because it is causing concern in the vicinity of Bronkhorst-spruit and Witbank.

How shall we be able to stay afloat if a wave such as the price of fertilizer increases by 24% per annum? If all these things are going to increase at such a rapid pace how will we be able to stay on top? Agriculture’s input costs are fixed, but there is no limit to the extent to which they can rise. Agriculture is like someone who is trapped in a house while the water level is steadily rising. It can no longer escape the input costs. Eventually the ground will be washed away from under its feet. The hon the Minister and his department will have to take another look at input costs and especially at imports.

There are competent engineers. There are enough people to help them, but if the funds are not available and if the department does not render any assistance, these people cannot be successful. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, many hon members have let fly at random today, and unfortunately I am going to do so in my speech too. I merely hope I hit the mark and am more successful than some of the attempts we have had to contend with here today.

What we have had here today was a generalisation of South African agriculture. A distorted image was drawn in this committee today of agriculture, and I take exception to that. If I had to stand here complaining on behalf of my constituency today—and I believe each one of us acts on behalf of our constituency—I would not be telling the truth. I am going to try to prove that. The hon member for Delmas confused the South African Agricultural Union’s standpoint in the document Gesonde Landbou-ontwikkeling in die RSA—on which I want to congratulate the union—with Government policy. I think that what the Union said was that in fact they supported Government policy.

What he is saying there now is untrue!

I can tell the hon member for Delmas that I took part in drawing up this document over the years. I know what it contains and I am satisfied that it is the standpoint of the South African Agricultural Union. The only group that can differ with that is the Transvaal Agricultural Union, and the input they make is a political one and nothing else. [Interjections.]

Objections were made to crop conversion today. I think the hon member must concede that market signals given by the Maize Board in the early eighties resulted in marginal areas being developed for maize—places where maize should never have been cultivated—because the price structure was favourable. Now we have to convert these areas which should actually have been under grass. It is said that we cannot keep the farmers on their farms in that way. We are reducing their risk and on that basis I think the conversion project is a success and should be viewed in that light. We must relay market signals timeously and we must tell farmers to take the correct decisions in time.

I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister. I want to indicate that by means of statistics we can prove that this hon Minister and his department have attained unequalled success in South African agriculture since he took over in 1982-83. I think we must tell the hon the Minister that we give him three years to find himself in the department and to start playing his part. Then we shall look at what happened from 1985 to 1987, the years for which we have statistics.

In the case of agronomy there was a price increase of 15%. All costs increased by 30%. Fertilizer—remember now that agronomy increased by 15%—increased by 14,8%, fuel dropped by 2%, and the price of tractors increased by 48%, but that is a fixed investment over a number of years.

Let us look at what happened in the case of horticulture. Horticulture’s product value increased by 42,3%. Once again all inputs increased by 30%, fertilizer by 14,8%, fuel by 2%, tractors by 48% and packaging materials by 49%. This was in line with the increase in the value of horticultural products—42% as against 30%.

Animal production—I do not want to repeat everything again—43,5%, fodder 21,6%, fuel 2%.

Let us take a look at the meat industry during the same period. The prices in the meat industry increased by 58%. On the other hand there is a repetition in the drop in fuel prices and the increase in the prices of tractors and fodder at 21,6%.

Surely then I am correct in saying that there was a distortion of agriculture’s image today. It is not true that things are not going well with agriculture as a whole.

I should like to come back to the hon member for Lichtenburg, who referred to the importing of meat. We must tell one another this afternoon that the decisions of the Meat Board are not the decisions of the Government. The Government can approve certain things within this scheme, but the request and the motivation come from the Meat Board. Decisions are taken against that background. I refer hon members to the March edition of Rooivleis in which the present happenings in the red meat industry are illustrated in detail, on the one hand as a result of availability and on the other as a result of prices.

Our per capita consumption has dropped since 1983 from 18,17 kg per capita per year to 15,4 kg per capita per year. That is a clear trend of which the meat farmer should take cognisance. Consequently the hon the Minister was justified in approving the decisions the Meat Board referred to.

Let us take a look at the graphs during the weeks when this was monitored, however. I am referring to a week when there were auctions, the previous week and the subsequent week. There is no difference. Read it in Rooivleis and see the results.

I come to the hon member for Losberg who referred hon members to the bread price. Once again he was presenting a distorted image, because there are only two ways in which one can assess prices. They can be assessed according to the duration of the work involved in buying a given article—12 entrepreneurs or professional classes were taken into account—or one can look at the value of one’s money, or the exchange rate. If one takes both criteria, my colleague, the hon member for Caledon, was quite right this morning.

Let us take a look at the bread price. If hon members want confirmation, I shall do this quickly, because I do not have much time left. In Switzerland the bread price is R5,28 per kilogram and in South Africa it is R0,85. The average 1988 exchange rates were taken into account in making these calculations. Consequently this is a true representation of the facts.

But we are living in South Africa!

If we must talk about the future, I want to tell the hon the Minister to carry on in that way. Under his leadership the farmers of South Africa have begun thinking in a market-orientated way.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With reference to the hon member’s request that the hon the Minister must carry on in that way, I appeal to the hon the Minister to resign today as a result of the increase in the bread price. [Interjections.]

Order! That is not a point of order! The hon member for Cradock may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman, we have little time left.

In saying the hon the Minister must carry on in that way, I am saying he is creating a new image of South Africa’s agriculture in the minds of the consumers. The consumer no longer sees the South African farmer as someone who comes to him with fixed prices. The South African consumer no longer sees the image of a farmer standing begging. The consumer is beginning to see that marketing boards are synchronizing the marketing of their products, and that there is inter-industrial liaison.

Mr Chairman, South African agriculture sees an opportunity in the emergent business giant, the informal sector, in South Africa. I tell hon members that South African agriculture is going to abolish regulations that are influencing its entry to this informal sector. We appeal to each of these marketing boards to view matters in this light.

If, however, the Government has to render a service and must provide support, it would be justified in my opinion for the Government to supply R12,3 million during this financial year for support to co-operatives that suffered a great deal because of the drought.

I had the privilege of travelling through the Northern Transvaal 14 days ago. The Northern Transvaal Co-operative is basically the only infrastructure I saw in the far rural areas. In my opinion the South African farmers should thank the South African Government for helping that co-operative to continue rendering this service.

We want to make an appeal. The future will require industries and boards to provide more information and more timeous market signals. Consequently we request that in future the hon the Minister ensure that the statistical service of this department is not neglected, because that is where the market signals have to come from.

Mr Chairman, I tell this Committee today that I believe in the department. I believe in my hon Minister. I believe in the farmers of South Africa. I cherish expectations with regard to agriculture and I am proud of being a farmer. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I have English-speaking people in my constituency, so I can be the hon member for “Lady Brand”.

I think we have covered a wide field in agriculture this afternoon. Before reacting to a number of remarks, I should like to thank the hon the Minister of Agriculture on behalf of all those involved in agriculture, since we have an Opposition that always adopts a negative attitude to everything. I should like to tell the hon the Minister of Agriculture that those of us who are involved in rendering a service to the farmers of South Africa are aware of the part that he has played in improving the life of every farmer in this country. It is a pleasure to be in charge of things in times of prosperity. However, when one has to contend with the severest drought this country has ever experienced, as well as the most serious imported inflation and the highest input costs, I should not like to be in the hon the Minister of Agriculture’s position.

When, on top of that, one has been faced since 1982 with an Opposition that is intent on spreading pessimism and gloom among our farmers and distorting facts, the task of a Minister of Agriculture must be the most unpleasant one imaginable. That is why I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon the Minister. We are not on the side of those who demand resignations; we are on the side of those who are expressing their appreciation for the sacrifices that are being made in the interests of the farmer of South Africa.

I know of no one in South Africa who has done more to promote the co-operative movement than this hon Minister of Agriculture. His whole life is devoted to serving the farmer by way of the co-operative system. I want to convey our sincere thanks to our hon Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues who assist him.

I want to tell the hon member for Dysselsdorp that when we are discussing a sensitive matter— this has already been mentioned this morning—I expect my colleagues to be more responsible than to talk about resignations. No resignation by any Minister would prevent the increase in the price of bread. When the increase in the price of bread is as small as the one that has been announced here today, every consumer of bread should be grateful.

We represent poor people.

I know that. I also want to tell the hon member that I understand that. However, I have only to visit any backyard in the Cape Town area to see with how much respect a piece of bread is being treated these days. In spite of that, we say that it is too expensive. If something is too expensive, every crumb will be eaten and it will not be consigned to the dustbin. When I think of this, I want to say that the bread price is not yet high enough.

I want to come to another aspect. Agriculture remains the most important sector of the South African economy. Since the beginning of this century, the South African farmer has been developing an industry which has come to be one of the biggest providers of job opportunities. In spite of the criticism levelled at us every day about the way we treat our labourers, we still have the largest number of labourers on our farms. The agricultural industry has been developed by the farmer into one of the biggest earners of foreign exchange. On the basis of this achievement and many others, we ought to pay tribute to the farmers of South Africa. There was a time in South Africa when farmers received little formal education, perhaps, and one might even have found an illiterate farmer here and there. During that period, and for a long time afterwards, farmers in South Africa were exploited in various ways. This morning an hon member who was a farmer himself in those days told me about the disgraceful exploitation of farmers that had taken place.

Even in those difficult times, it was of the utmost importance for farmers to hold their own as independent entrepreneurs. Today, in 1989, this remains the objective of the farmer in South Africa. All the friends who have received the document of the SA Agricultural Union will read on page 1 that this remains the objective of the farmers of South Africa.

As far back as the beginning of this century, farmers recognised the need to organise themselves as individuals in order to survive as farmers in the long term. The SA Agricultural Union was born of this need, and it has developed into the fine and proud organisation that looks after all the interests of the farmers today.

During the last 80 years, the need of the farmers has led to the development of a system of control and marketing boards. I listened this morning to hon members who spoke with indifference of control and marketing boards, but I want to tell hon members that these are the institutions that set the South African farmer on his feet.

Research units were established by the State. The co-operative movement was introduced as a commercial mechanism for the farmers. Other service organisations were formed to market the farmer’s product and to promote the industry.

Today, our farmers have a comprehensive service network throughout the country. This has brought about stability in agriculture, in the interests, not only of the farmer, but also of the consumer and the country. It has resulted in control.

After all, nothing on earth stays the same. It is said that one must adapt or die. This applies to farmers as well. There was a time when it was necessary to exercise total control to enable the farmer to survive and to protect him from exploitation.

Today many people are calling for a free-market system. I want to make it clear that I do not support a full free-market system for agriculture. I do support a freer-market system for agriculture. Total control in agriculture has served its purpose. That is true. It is time we also adapted to a freer-market system. It is true that this will impose heavy responsibilities upon the farmer. However, I believe that we are ready to take up these challenges.

Prices should not be controlled. A floor price is absolutely essential to ensure stability in every industry. I want to mention an example from an industry that I think I know something about. Over the last few years, the dairy industry has been moving from a system of total control to a freer-market system. At the beginning of the 80s, the longest period of surpluses in the history of the industry demonstrated the disadvantages of too much control. Incidentally, the dairy industry—I just want to mention this in passing to all the other industries that are sometimes so quick to complain—survived this period without a State subsidy. This means that the farmer or the consumer paid for the exports and the losses himself. In the process of moving towards a freer-market system, a new purchasing system was adopted. This meant that the increase in producer as well as consumer prices took place without State intervention. I doubt whether producer prices would have been the same under the old system.

My time is running out, but I should like to make one plea. The dairy industry in South Africa has embarked on an attempt to combine the various service organisations under one umbrella. In other words, we should like to retain the Dairy Board as a representative body established and controlled mainly by farmers, but we want to combine it with an organisation such as the Dairy Foundation, which gives attention to image and marketing, as well as to the research that is done.

I wanted to refer this afternoon to an article in the Landbouweekblad about the research council. I just want to ask our hon Minister and the department, in conclusion, to be careful when this new research council with all its functions and objectives is established. I think that we should in fact deregulate and that certain research should be undertaken by the State. Only the State will be able to provide for proper research in that field. However, there is research to be done in connection with product development, which should be undertaken by the industry that manufactures and sells a design. I should like to argue very strongly that we should not try to have all this research done by the same body again. Let us divide the responsibility and serve the industry for which we are doing the research according to the best method.

My final plea is that we should not place undue emphasis on market-orientated production. In the dairy industry we have learnt that we have to reserve a certain amount of produce in order to deal with surpluses. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, there are a few aspects I want to react to. In the nature of things it is difficult to react to each individual’s speech, but I think the one matter we must deal with at this stage of the debate is the question of input costs in agriculture.

I think it is one of the greatest single problems we have in South African agriculture today. I shall make no secret of it. Input prices must basically be dealt with by the authorities. It is the function of the authorities. The authorities do this in fact by adapting their monetary policy in such a way as to have the least possible further effect on inflation in South Africa. I think the results have already been demonstrated in that at one stage inflation dropped to almost single figures in South Africa. At present it is rising again, but this is constantly taken into consideration.

I want to make the point here that all the increasing inputs that agriculture has to pay are not caused by the Government or by the farmer or anyone else for that matter. It is as a result of an international situation in which we find ourselves. The importation of capital goods such as tractors and fuel is a matter we shall simply have to face up to. The exchange rate and so on is something we can do nothing about. One therefore has certain factors which are uncontrollable.

The combating of inflation is not only the task of the Government; it is also the task of agriculture to protect itself against inflationary conditions. For the sake of interest we examined the financial position in the Southern Cape and the Swartland as reflected in the Burger Report. We found that the capital investment in mechanisation on certain farms was as high as R740 per hectare—in the form of machinery alone. If a person wants to produce wheat at a diminishing price, he must know that he has problems. In other words, we must take care that we do not build inflation into our production systems, and that is why it is so extremely essential for us to consider structural changes in this respect that one must diversify so that one has greater mobility in one’s market position. It is also for the farmer and the farmer’s own organisations to lend a hand in this respect.

There is a second aspect in regard to the issue of increasing input costs that I want to mention. Approximately 18 months ago the co-operative movement launched a monitoring campaign. Twenty-two co-operatives throughout South Africa were chosen to monitor the counter prices of 109 commodities. If one looks at the result—a quarterly report on the situation is being published—one finds inter alia that approximately 76% of the 109 inputs had on average become more expensive during the year ending 30 September 1988. It is alarming that no fewer than 37 items, or rather 34%, of all the commodities in question had on average increased by 15% and more.

We are observing the inflationary trend in agriculture. At a recent discussion we took a decision. All decisions I take are decisions I take in conjunction with the South African Agricultural Union. Consequently the hon member for Del-mas must not say next year that this is my policy only. It is a policy which develops in consultation with the whole of organised agriculture.

We are working on a submission. It is important and hon members must take cognisance of it. It is a submission which the South African Agricultural Union is going to make, and I have already discussed the matter with the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry. We are going to make a submission for an assessment under the Harmful Business Practices Act, passed last year by this Parliament, for leave to institute an investigation in terms of that Act into the increase in the prices of some of these products. It will be the first test of the effectiveness of that Act. We have held discussions and we shall submit a memorandum along these lines soon to the committee or board that has to do the monitoring.

There is another facet which we must also deal with, and that is the question of imports. For many years South Africa agriculture accepted the policy of imports and exports. South Africa is a net exporter of agricultural produce. This is controlled and monitored by the marketing boards and the marketing system we have in South Africa.

What does that mean? It means that on that basis we are creating a guarantee for the consumer which ensures in the first place that we have sufficient basic food products in this country. Hon members will recall that we had to import certain basic food products, such as maize, which is very important as a basic food product in difficult times. When hon members sit down to have their breakfast every morning they eat maize. They eat it in the form of milk, eggs, butter and various other food products.

The policy is that we have an import and export policy. It also means that when one has a shortage of certain products on one’s market such as meat, it is the policy to supplement that shortage by means of imports and to provide the market with the commodities for which there is a demand. What is very important in this connection is that one should not import in such a way that jeopardises one’s own demand and price structure of that particular product by means of that activity. This was the standpoint of the Meat Board—a healthy standpoint—and we accepted it.

In the case of tobacco—I think the hon member for Lichtenburg referred to it— the situation arose during the drought that as a result of a shortage of water, and as a result of minerals in the soil, which developed over a number of years, one was saddled with a chlorine problem. The Chairman of the Tobacco Board told me, after I had had discussions with him on this matter, that that tobacco was absolutely unmarketable. The factories could not absorb it at all. All they could do with it was burn it. In addition the stabilisation fund was used to a great extent to pay out these farmers for tobacco which at that stage had basically no market value.

We have now had rains, however, and the situation has improved. The other day I had a submission before me for further tobacco imports. We cut it by 50%, because the manufacturers with whom we held talks told me that that was possible. They agree that if the situation changes that area can again produce Burley tobacco, which is important, and we shall then of course import less and use a tobacco which is produced in South Africa.

The hon member for Caledon discussed the interdependence of consumers and producers. If we look at the figures, particularly those in respect of the food basket, it is important to note—I always use this as a criterion to see how our marketing system in South Africa is working—what share the producer has in the consumer rand.

If one compares this with a country such as the USA in which there is absolutely free enterprise, the figures are as follows. In 1988 the consumer rand in the food basket in South Africa was 45,9%, and in the USA 30,5%. What does that tell us? It means that the Americans pay far more from the farm gate to where the product is on the consumer’s table. Their processing and distribution costs of agricultural produce are far more expensive than those in South Africa.

This successful criterion we are using can to a large extent be attributed to the effective marketing and distribution system in South Africa. That is one of the best criteria. The people who therefore talk about the abolition of the Marketing Act are talking utter nonsense. Not even the EEC are prepared to allow completely free marketing in agriculture. Therefore I agree with the hon member who spoke just before me. We cannot agree to a full free market in agriculture. It is not possible in agriculture. Agriculture is not a factory in which one can turn switches on and off to co-ordinate supply and demand. Agriculture works differently; it is unique. It makes the task of the Minister of Agriculture in South Africa extremely difficult. If the country is experiencing economic problems and one wants a healthy economic policy one must always come up for agriculture by saying that the position of agriculture is unique. It has a tremendous task and therefore I want to make use of this opportunity to thank the Cabinet, and specifically the hon the State President, for having supported me in this connection over the years.

The hon member for Bethlehem spoke about a product of which there is a considerable surplus at the moment. We know the potato industry— one year there is a shortage and the next year a surplus. We know that this industry is very sensitive at a certain stage. If there is a drought in the blossom stage the potato production can drop tremendously within a question of a few days.

The hon member asked a few very important questions about the Potato Board. At the moment this board has a considerable amount of money in its stabilisation fund; I think it is R32 million. This is a stabilisation fund which the board has built up over the years by imposing levies on the primary product of the farmers. The objective of the fund must be seen in conjunction with the scheme of the board, namely to dispose of surpluses. The hon member said, however—I assume that these are the correct facts according to the circulars which he quoted—that at present the Potato Board does not see its way clear to using these funds for the elimination of surpluses. The question now—and it is a logical question—is whether the Potato Board has not over this period imposed an unnecessarily high levy on this product. The board is now sitting with quite an amount in accumulated funds.

If a board has accumulated large quantities of funds it is difficult to distribute those funds. The board must have a specific scheme in terms of which it is able to do so. It cannot begin to distribute money to farmers haphazardly. To what farmers is it going to distribute the money? Consequently there must be a scheme whereby it can implement its surplus elimination. If the board is unable to do this, it should have amended its scheme.

From this a second question arises. If the Potato Board is not able to eliminate surpluses, should it not re-examine its scheme? Simply to continue to impose levies on the primary product without being able to apply the funds to implement the scheme does not make sense. I shall begin to discuss this matter with the Potato Board soon. I just want to say that a submission has been made in connection with this aspect, namely that the levy should be reduced from 15c to 5c per 15 kg bag. This was agreed to. It is only a small amount, but at least it will help.

The hon member for Worcester discussed the wine industry. He is a connoisseur of this industry, and I also think he is a connoisseur of the product.

We know that the wine industry in South Africa has become very sophisticated. The hon member remarked that we had a very large variety of estate wines in this country, and I think he spoke about multi-coloured labels. The question which occurs to me—I am not a great authority—is whether these multi-coloured labels do not sometimes cause the consumer to become a little confused. The hon member agrees with me. Perhaps this is a facet we should examine in detail. I am not an authority in this area, however, but if the hon member talks to us about it—there are also other hon members who are authorities on this industry—it is something we should look into.

The hon member also spoke about deregulation in the wine industry. Legislation on wine products is going to be presented to Parliament during the present year. In it an effort is made to provide for less regulation and for the privatisation of certain facets. The Bill will be before Parliament soon and the hon member will be able to participate in the discussion.

I want to make another remark, and I am pleased the hon member for Dysselsdorp is here. We are saddled in South Africa with an historical situation. It is a given situation and there is nothing one can do about it. Certainly one can do nothing about it by shouting at one another. The historical situation in South Africa is that White agriculture is very far advanced. However, it is also important for agriculture—the hon member spoke very seriously about agriculture among Coloured people—that the Coloured people themselves should launch campaigns to develop themselves into proper agriculturists in South Africa. I am not saying that Coloureds are not good farmers; on the contrary, I know there are Coloureds who are very good farmers.

To encourage and hasten this process I made an offer through the agency of my department to the Minister of Agriculture of the hon member to provide them in all respects with the necessary technical assistance so as to develop a proper agricultural department suited to their circumstances, because circumstances in Coloured agriculture are not in all respects the same as those in White agriculture. The most logical method is to move closer from the stage at which they are now so that we can help with the development. I am prepared to do so.

The hon member for Losberg is not present at the moment. He wanted to start a political game.

Leave Losberg alone.

He referred to the statement made yesterday by the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development on the question of housing. I think the hon the Minister was speaking on the basis of the circumstances prevailing specifically in his own constituency in the Western Cape.

What is the position? It is that many of our fruit farmers in South Africa employ up to as many as 100 people to do certain project work, such as the picking of fruit, the pruning of vineyards, etc. The circumstances in the north are completely different. We get a great deal of that project work done there by means of migrant labour. In other words in the Western Cape we have the situation that many of these farmers have already established on their farm a town which occupies agricultural land. This agricultural land which is being occupied is expensive. There is nothing wrong with coming forward with a scheme to develop a community in a specific place for agricultural labour, one in which one can give those occupants certain advantages. There is nothing wrong with that.

My reply to the hon member is that we do not want to say that we can apply precisely the same scheme in all areas and with all labour in South Africa. That is precisely what he wants to do.

He wants to turn it into a political issue.

That is precisely what he wants to do.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

My time is unfortunately very limited, Sir. The hon member is welcome to speak to me afterwards.

The hon member for Winburg made a very good speech. I want to thank him for addressing a few words of appreciation to my department and to the Director-General. The task of not only the Minister, but also our marketing boards and organised agriculture, would have been far more difficult if we had not had absolute co-operation between the department and these organisations. The relations are excellent. I do not want to compare my department with other departments, but I want to tell hon members that there is not a more open department in South Africa than the Department of Agriculture. [Interjections.] Every day I address boards, organised agriculture and farmers. Some days I offer up to 60,70 cups of coffee in my office. [Interjections.] It is not only the door of the Minister that is open, it is also the door of the Director-General and his department which is open and willing to receive all these representations. I therefore thank the hon member once again for his words of thanks to my department.

The hon member was a member of the Brand Committee which presented a very important report. We have arrived at a situation in South Africa in which we can no longer take a blinkered view of the production and marketing of specific industries. This brings me back to what the hon member for Caledon said, namely that there is an interdependence among the various commodities. We cannot merely consider maize, wheat and other industries. There are joint marketing facets. That is why the question of co-ordination, particularly in respect of our grain boards—the biggest commodity in South Africa—is extremely necessary and we shall have to move in the direction of a grain board in respect of the marketing of fodder grain. I am pleased that these problems have been ironed out, because we are going to and we can reach a situation in South Africa in which maize production can be affected to such an extent that we will quite probably have to make use of wheat as a fodder grain. It is also important in this respect that the industries concerned with these commodities should take note of this. The livestock fodder industry in South Africa is a powerful industry in which billions of rand have been invested and for that reason it is necessary for these industries to know precisely what the situation is, otherwise we shall find ourselves in difficulties. Previously we had the position that we imported wheat instead of maize. To a very great extent this was disruptive to the livestock fodder industry, because the mixing procedure was not geared to this. Consequently this also affects the various industries and we are moving in that direction.

In the short time at my disposal I also want to react to the hon member’s reference to the arrear debts in the maize stabilisation fund which at present amount to a total of R458 million. This stabilisation fund deficit has been built up over a period of 26 years. The Brand Committee was unable to make a finding and say in whose interests these loans were raised. The committee could not arrive at a finding and said it was essential to support the producer price, but in certain respects it was essential to help the consumer in the process. However, the committee also said that it was essential to borrow this money in order to establish certain price levels for the producer and the industry. Consequently there are three partners in this industry that have to accept joint responsibility for the debt that has accumulated in the stabilisation fund. We can in fact say that we will benefit only a specific industry in South Africa if we write off this stabilisation fund deficit. I cannot agree with that, however. If one takes that R458 million and makes it the responsibility of the producers—I am referring specifically to the producers now— it would have the implication that one would be imposing a burden of R45 per hectare on this year’s output, which is a wonderful harvest, and is in the vicinity of three tons per hectare.

The moment one does that one would be administering a shock to the industry, and if one does that, people get out of the maize farming industry, and if they do that, they get into the wheat industry. That is precisely what happened in the Free State this year. Large areas in the Western Transvaal are also in a position to convert from maize to wheat. Then the aid programmes and the structural change which we launched for the West and Southern Cape would have been useless.

Hon members must therefore understand that one should be very careful not to upset the balance and place unnecessary burdens on people, burdens which have been artificially created in an industry that has for years developed in a specific way. We can enumerate many reasons as to why the industry developed in that way, and I think it is one of its weaknesses now. I am not saying that this was the case earlier. It was essential to develop an industry on a cost-plus basis, but we have now arrived at a situation in the South African marketing of agricultural produce in which we are no longer able to work on that basis. If one works on a cost-plus basis, one has to estimate the size of the harvest and the losses on exports. It is therefore a hit or miss method. One year a person estimates it accurately and the next year one just scrapes through. We cannot carry on like this any longer.

That is why the maize industry itself decided that we should move in the direction of a more market-orientated system by making scenarios available to the farmers in regard to the possibilities of the market prior to planting time, so as to be more market-orientated in this way.

Furthermore I want to point out that the scenario price is in reality a delivery price. This means, as regards the account of the maize industry, that if the foreign market changes over a year and makes a profit, it is once again able to make a payment to its producers by way of a “middel-skot” or intermediate payment.

The hon member for Witbank discussed a tax concession for farmers’ wives. I myself am very fond of a farmer’s wife—I am married to one myself. [Interjections.] I should like to hear a proposal and a method of doing so. I promise him that I shall bring it to the attention of the hon the Minister of Finance.

The hon member for Cradock also made a very important speech. I want to thank him very cordially for the kind words he spoke here, as well as for the fact that he pointed out that things were not going all that badly for agriculture. I have just been driving around a little in the Karoo, where I met a number of farmers. I want to tell hon members that there is great optimism, but greater care is also being taken.

We have really learned a great deal from this difficult situation, and I foresee that when we have good years again, we are going to experience greater stability. A friend of mine told me the other day that it was easier to assimilate bad years than prosperity. We must be careful so that when we have prosperous years again, we will be able to assimilate them. I want to thank that hon member very much.

I want to conclude. In agricultural publications one reads reports about agriculture in other countries. During my overseas travels I have frequently tried to compare South African farmers with those overseas, but I do not think it is always possible. However there is one point I want to make. If one considers the subsidies the USA pays out to its agriculture and its industries—the hon members of the opposition parties may perhaps enjoy this now, although subsidies are not always good for an industry—and when I see what subsidies and what measure of tariff protection the EEC makes available for its people, and I see the achievement of South African farmers who have been able to compete on the foreign market, I want to tell hon members that South Africa has the best farmers in the world. [Interjections.] That is why it is a pleasure to work for the South African farmers and for South African agriculture. It is one of the industries offering the greatest challenges, but it is a wonderful challenge to be able to work with this problem. That is why it was a pleasure for me to have been able to serve agriculture for all these years.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Minister the following question. Yesterday, in an announcement, the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development said that farm workers were going to be given servitudes for farm housing. My question is whether the hon the Minister can tell me what the practical feasibility of the provision of servitudes to farm workers for farm housing is?

Mr Chairman, I shall discuss the matter with the hon the Minister. However, I think the hon member should put that question to him since he is after all the hon the Minister who is dealing with housing matters. He has certain powers in respect of the housing trust which should also play a very major role in this entire programme, because it creates additional security in the establishment of that housing. Apparently the hon the Minister has worked out such a scheme, and I think the hon member should put that question to him. If it is concerned with agriculture in general in South Africa, I am very certain that the hon the Minister will then discuss the matter further with my department and me.

Mr Chairman, yesterday I omitted to thank the hon member for George, who also acted as Whip in this debate and who did an excellent job, for his contribution. I should like to take the opportunity to do so now. The hon member touched upon a few very interesting points. He referred to the breeding of the elephants, about which I too am glad, because it was a natural process.

He referred to the department’s regulations, and this is again a case, as I mentioned yesterday, of a proper relationship between centralisation and decentralisation having to be obtained. However, I should merely like to emphasise that he made a very good contribution, and we appreciate it.

Furthermore it is a pleasure for me to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the team of officials of the Department of Water Affairs who did an excellent job. It is nice to work with a team of professional men and to know that the submissions they make to one are well-considered and scientifically based. We are very proud of our team of officials in the department.

It is fitting, at the start of the debate, for me to furnish a brief synopsis of the position as far as water is concerned and of what has happened over the past year. Last year it was my privilege to report that we had had fine increases in large parts of the country as far as the content of our storage dams was concerned. At that stage I could announce that 68 of the 132 major dams, on which the department reports every week, were 90% full and fuller. At present 67 of these dams are 90% full and fuller. Unfortunately I must also say that the Eastern and Western Cape are nowhere near the end of their problems. Reference was made to the situation in the Eastern Cape in yesterday’s debate. I indicated that my hon Deputy Minister would deal with this today.

While I am referring to him, I should also like to say that it is a great pleasure to work with the hon the Deputy Minister. In fact, he carries most of the load of the Department of Water Affairs. We thank him for his contribution.

The very serious drought in the Eastern Cape has obliged us to impose strict water restrictions on the Port Elizabeth system from 1 April. The three major dams in the water supply system at present contain only 21% of the joint storage capacity. The Paul Sauer Dam— the largest of the three—is only 12% full. Supplies from this dam are now going to be restricted to 90% for irrigation and 60% for municipal consumers. There is an overall 30% restriction for municipal use from the system as a whole. The hon the Deputy Minister will deal with this in greater detail.

The inflow to the country’s major dams over the past two years is in stark contrast to that from April 1986 to March 1987. This can be seen in the case of the Vaal Dam, the Bloemhof Dam and the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam, if we express the inflow figures for the past three years as a percentage of the average flow.

For the Vaal Dam they are 32%, 224% and 162%; for the Bloemhof Dam they are 20%, 197% and 240%; and for the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam they are 69%, 251% and 179%. These figures clearly indicate the improvement for these major dams over the past two wet years.

As I have already said, our present position, as far as stored water is concerned, is very similar to that of last year. We were therefore able, so to speak, to maintain last year’s position, and in the more fortunate parts of our country improvements were even noticeable. If we think back to the decline we reported in the early 1980s, we have much more to be thankful for now.

Our sympathies go out to parts of the Transvaal Bushveld, as well as the Eastern and Western Cape, and I sincerely hope that relief is very close at hand for those areas. The recent rains in parts of the Eastern Cape are very encouraging. It is also a privilege for me to make an announcement about certain new schemes today.

Before I give the names of the schemes, I want to apologise to all the hon members that some of the White Papers that were tabled on 19 April are unfortunately not freely available in printed form. The discussion of the Vote is very early this year, and although the staff have worked very late, and on many occasions right through the night, in order to have the documents tabled before the debate on this Vote, we were not completely successful. Hon members will soon receive the usual printed copies. If hon members have any queries, they are welcome to approach the department in this regard.

The new schemes I want to announce are schemes we are already partly familiar with. The Cabinet recently approved a regional water scheme for the Sandveld on the West Coast, and there have been reports on this. However, I should like to give a few more details.

Local subterranean water sources will, as far as possible, be used for the scheme since this will be considerably more economical than bringing water in over long distances from the Olifants River. The scheme will be constructed in phases, and as a first phase the intention is to supply water to Graaffwater and Strandfontein/Doring Bay, where the greatest problems are being experienced at present.

The inhabitants of Graaffwater will not be able to carry the full costs of the water, which is expected to be R3,38 per cubic metre, and they qualify for assistance in terms of the Government’s policy on supplying water to arid regions. The tariffs will be subsidised in order to provide the community concerned with enough water for their basic human needs, within the conreduce of their ability to pay.

At Strandfontein/Doring Bay exploratory drilling work is being used to assist in determining whether there is adequate subterranean water. If not, water will have to be brought in, at high cost, from the Olifants River.

The same rules will apply here, namely that the water would then be subsidised in order to bring it within the means of the inhabitants. The cost of the scheme for Graaffwater and Strandfontein/Doring Bay is provisionally estimated at R3,5 million.

†Another interesting new project is the construction of a dam at Ladysmith for flood control. It is usually the department’s intention to fill a dam as soon as possible, and of course to try to keep it full. In this ever-changing world, even that no longer seems to apply.

The borough of Ladysmith in Natal has experienced 27 floods over the last 102 years. During 1987 and 1988 and most recently in February 1989 Ladysmith has been flooded four times, causing major damage to both residential and commercial properties. A technical subcommittee was appointed by the special Cabinet Committee on Flood Disasters to investigate the problem and propose a solution. The report was completed in October 1988 and the recommended solution was presented to the Cabinet for approval. Consideration was given to a number of solutions, including the relocation of the community that was regularly subjected to floods.

The proposed solution, namely the construction of the Mount Pleasant flood attenuation dam, together with levees in the town area, was accepted early this year by the special Cabinet committee and the Cabinet. The proposed works will significantly reduce the risk of flooding in Ladysmith. The dam that will be constructed on the Klip River just upstream from Ladysmith, approximately three kilometers to the west, is likely to be a composite dam with a concrete spillway and earth flanks. The levees will be located on both banks of the river within the town area, in order to establish a greater safe outlet for the dam, thereby making it possible to reduce the size of the dam.

Interim measures such as the introduction of a flood warning system, will be implemented to reduce possible flood damage and loss of life until such time as the proposed works have been completed. The local authority is already giving attention to this aspect. The cost of this proposed dam and other works is estimated at R70 million.

*This will be the first time that we are carrying out construction work with a view to having an empty dam. Here is a dam we do not want to fill with water, preferring to have it empty, as a flood-control measure—a very strange situation.

I recently visited several self-governing states to hold discussions with them about the distribution of water among states. I believe that if we were to proceed with ad hoc water distribution, we would be heading for a great deal of trouble. The fact is that in the self-governing states there is an increase in population requiring an increase in water, also as a result of increased standards of living. Particularly in the North-Eastern Transvaal we should view water sources as a totality which should be jointly controlled and administered. I want to tell hon members that my visits to the self-governing states were very successful. We had very positive discussions with the people there, and I look forward to good co-operation and a well-managed water system in these areas.

If I had more time I would have liked to elaborate on this, but I see that I am beginning to have problems with the time at my disposal. I want to content myself with this and say I look forward to the discussion of the Vote.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased that the hon the Minister devoted his last few sentences to the ad hoc water situation between us and the national states and the TBVC countries because this is a matter which requires urgent attention. I want to reply to it immediately by saying that the farmers along the Moses River, in the vicinity of Groblersdal, have complaint after complaint about their water supply. I am also pleased that the hon the Deputy Minister of Water Supply is present. I want to say that there are many complaints from farmers that their water supply has decreased to such an extent that they actually face bankruptcy. Some of the farmers were compelled to leave their farms because the ad hoc basis on which they had obtained water was totally inadequate.

Permit me to congratulate the officials of this department sincerely. They are an outstanding group. This must be one of the departments which work most purposefully and conscientiously. I think the hon the Minister can be proud of the men and women by his side who help him to carry out this work because the percentage which this department received was only 6% more than last year’s budget. If one takes inflation into account, there actually seems to have been a decrease of 7%. Regardless of the decrease, which affects the department too, this department does great work and I want to tell the officials that we have noticed it and we congratulate them sincerely.

The Water Research Commission did not build up its own research facilities, which pleases me, because this could easily have resulted in duplication. This could perhaps have had an adverse effect on our universities. It would perhaps have been difficult to be able to stimulate water research objectively because the department would itself often have asked what its position in the situation was. Nevertheless we are pleased at the idea of making these research facilities increasingly available to universities and assisting to enable 66 projects to be finalised and financed over the past year—1988—by 36 departments of universities. We are pleased about this. Apparently universities are very eager to do water research. We want to congratulate the University of Natal and the University of Cape Town in particular on the exceptional part they played in this effort.

I next want to speak about the stimulation of rainfall. It remains a theological question whether clouds should be stimulated by man to produce more rain or to ward off hail. There are two groups representing different schools of thought. One group says that one should subjugate the earth. Then there is the other group which says that there is a difference between a break in the soil and clouds in the air. I see that a research team has been moved from Nelspruit to Carolina on the Eastern Transvaal escarpment. It is calculated that Carolina possibly holds more opportunities for supplementing water which goes to waste.

Will this method of making rain not cause floods in our area on the other hand? Will more dongas not appear in our lands? Will it not perhaps create a situation in which there is so much rain that our farmers do not say that their harvest has failed this year as a result of too little rain but as a result of too much? The main objective seems to me to be to quantify rainfall.

I know about silver iodide which is scattered on clouds to make rain and also to dissipate hailbearing clouds, or to reduce the possibility of hail, but I also know of farmers who were so angry that they actually wanted to reach for their rifles to keep away the aircraft which scatter the silver iodite, as it were. Many farmers are sceptical about this method and I know that some say no, leave the clouds alone; leave the rain up there. God will send it in His own good time. I should like to appeal that we do not work to the advantage of one farmer and the disadvantage of another. I request the department to deal with this matter cautiously.

I see that there are quite a number of projects on the salination and desalination of water. This is a good effort towards the continued increase and improvement of the water supply. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to be speaking after the hon member for Witbank. Firstly, I want to thank the hon the Minister and his department for their positive attitude with which they served us during the past year.

More than two centuries ago, the river which was given the name of Gariep by the Hottentots, was given a new name, the Orange River, by Col Robert John Gordon, the commanding officer of the Dutch East India Company. Two centuries later, this river was to become the most important river in our country, which would provide water to different points. The Verwoerd Dam, the largest in our country, was completed in 1970. What was the objective of this large project? The most important objectives of the Orange River Project were to provide water for irrigation and for urban and industrial purposes. Briefly, the aim of the project was to irrigate new lands in the semi-desert, the barren parts of the Karoo and in the Cape and to supplement water supplies to existing irrigation schemes and urban areas; to give new life to the fertile, but drought-stricken Great Fish River and Sundays River Valleys; to increase the value of South African agricultural production; to make the establishment of 200 new farms possible; to stimulate the production of mutton and beef, wool, milk, lucerne, cotton, wheat and raisins in the Orange River basin and elsewhere, as well as to promote wine and citrus cultivation.

Further objectives of the Orange River Project were to encourage the economic activities and development in the areas which were directly involved and in the Republic as a whole, by contributing to the decentralisation of the industries and to promote the most economic utilisation of our country’s labour force. It also envisaged the combating of the flow of the rural population to the cities by establishing stable farming communities and controlling the flood waters in the Orange River so that regular water supplies and irrigation schemes could be provided below the dam in the North Western Cape. This project was a successful one and served its purpose. The objectives of this project were that after its completion it would also include Graaff-Reinet, but later that idea was shelved. If one looks at the objectives of the Orange River Project, it suits Graaff-Reinet and its environs very well. This project will have the same objectives as that of the Verwoerd Dam.

The hon the Minister must make Graaff-Reinet the storage point of water provision in the Eastern Cape, the Karoo, the South Western districts of Graaff-Reinet, Port Elizabeth, Bergvlei, the Stormdrif Dam, Oudthoorn and Mossel Bay. What is the old saying? It is as easy as falling off a log. The objectives are very clear. I only hope and pray that the hon the Minister will implement all the objectives as far as the Karoo is concerned.

To put it differently, there was once a farmer who was planning for his old age. When he received his income from his harvests, he put the money in a trunk and told his wife, “Mother, that is for old age”. Old Jan, the worker, always heard what his boss said. He was often sent to fetch food for his employer at midday. One day, when Jan thought that old age was now strong enough, he said to the farmer’s wife, “the boss said I should bring old age with me”, whereupon it was given to him. The planning was therefore very poor. I beg the hon the Minister to ensure that this plan for the Orange River will also provide water to Graaff-Reinet, or else it might one day be considered to have been poor planning.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Northern Cape addressed certain requests to the hon the Minister. I wish him everything of the best. To appeal for water is a long process, but ultimately one does succeed. That has been our experience. I am sure that the department will supply South Africa with water as far as they are able to do so.

I also have a problem. I should like to exchange a few ideas concerning the water situation in the south-eastern coastal areas, viz the area from the Storms River in the west to Alexandria in the east. In other words, this includes mainly the magistrate’s districts of Humansdorp, Hankey, Port Elizabeth, Uitenhage, Kirkwood and Alexandria. Apart from the industries in Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage and the tourist industry of our holiday resorts, this area is completely dependent on agricultural production for the well-being of its inhabitants.

The hon member for Bethelsdorp indicated yesterday what problems are being experienced in this area at present as a result of the prevailing drought. I should like to stress this even further. The hon the Minister also spoke about this at the beginning of his speech. It is clear from investigations made by Prof Kassier of Stellenbosch that water is the greatest restrictive factor in this area.

For the past six to seven years we have experienced an uninterrupted below-average rainfall in the area. Our water supplies have been depleted to the absolute minimum, and it has become very clear that the existing sources, as they are being utilised at present, cannot supply everyone’s water requirements—I am talking about water for domestic and industrial use as well as for irrigation. In the case of the Gamtoos River State Water Scheme in particular, where the water is used by the farmers as well as the city of Port Elizabeth, the conflicting interests between these two groups lead to constant conflict. I am convinced that these conflicts will increase as development takes place and water becomes scarcer.

The most important groups of consumers in the region are those in the metropolitan area of Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage, and in the valley of the Gamtoos River and the Sundays River. No less important are the smaller irrigation areas such as the Kambria-White River area, the Seekoe-Swart River area, which the hon member for Bethelsdorp spoke about yesterday, the Kabel-jous River, the Kruis River, the Boesmans River and others, as well as rapidly developing towns, such as Humansdorp, Jeffreys Bay, Aston Bay, Paradys, St Francis Bay, Cape St Francis, Oyster Bay and numerous other coastal towns which are expanding with rapid strides.

As hon members know, the site for the next nuclear power station is there too. These are all developments that are going to require water. Estimates already indicate that many of these areas will not have sufficient water for their needs by the year 2000. The time has come for us to take a serious look at this matter.

I now want to discuss the immediate problem. It was expected that the present sources would be sufficient for Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage until at least the year 2000. It is clear even now—more than 10 years in advance—that we were not wrong in our calculations, but that the life of the sources was overestimated completely. Whereas the Sundays River can largely supply sufficient water for existing irrigation, as well as for the further development of numerous hectares of irrigation land from the Orange-Fish River system, the Gamtoos Valley is restricted to a certain amount of water from the Gamtoos River State Water Scheme, viz 60% of its supply. The other 40% has been allocated to Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage.

The argument often used is that the farmers do not pay for the administrative costs of a scheme. Apart from the foreign exchange earned with the export of oranges, the inhabitants of the Gamtoos Valley pay a total income tax annually—I checked this with the Receiver of Revenue—of at least R1,5 million to the Treasury. That is over and above the water taxation of R800 000 paid to the department, and the unknown amount collected by the regional services councils in this area. Then I am not even mentioning that the Gamtoos Valley forms a pantry for Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage.

Whereas Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage have other sources at their disposal, the farmers in the Gamtoos Valley do not. If the water is taken away, this valley will stagnate completely. By the end of the 1988-89 water year on 31 March, the Paul Sauer Dam was only 12% full. By 14 April—14 days later—the level of this water had dropped to such an extent that the dam was only 9,8% full. A welcome 50mm of rain has brought relief in the meantime, but this has supplemented the content of the dam by a mere 0,3%. As a result the dam is now approximately 10% full.

Farmers were granted 10% of their quota on 31 March, whereas Port Elizabeth received 40% of their quota. I differ with the hon the Minister, because I think he said they had received 30% of their quota. The figure I have is 40%.

At the moment Port Elizabeth is drawing 40 000 cubic metres per day from the Paul Sauer Dam, even in these terrible conditions. We had expected that at least the water would again be distributed on a basis of 60:40 at the beginning of the water year. I do not want to play off Port Elizabeth and the farmers against one another, but just consider what will happen in this valley if in the end there is not even any drinking water. One must remember that we have no other source, whereas Port Elizabeth’s other sources still contain approximately 30% of their capacity. This is another example of conflicting interests.

We saw this coming. At the end of last year we appealed to the municipality of Port Elizabeth at least to prevent people from watering their gardens with hoses. This request was ignored, however.

What I want to emphasise is that at the moment there is not sufficient water for everyone in the systems, let alone if all the planned development becomes a reality. I shudder when I think of the development of the Black residential areas which definitely has to take place in this region.

It is the standpoint of the hon the Deputy Minister that existing schemes must be stabilised and secured. Consequently I request that we undertake a comprehensive replanning and determination of needs in the whole of the region. What I have in mind is not only the large schemes, but also the stabilisation of agriculture in the area by schemes which can supply farms with additional water.

Secondly I associate myself with the request made by the hon member for Bethelsdorp, that the water of the Orange River which is already available at Barclay Bridge in the Sundays River—that is just a stone’s throw away from Port Elizabeth, and the hon member mentioned yesterday that it was 30 km from Motherwell— be channeled to the metropolis’ water system in the form of an emergency scheme as soon as possible. That can relieve the pressure on the Paul Sauer Dam at times such as these.

What we have in mind here is an emergency scheme. The later large-scale integration of Orange River water can then be planned in the usual time and way. We are aware of the planning that is being investigated by the department at the moment, but that is in too long a term. We need an emergency scheme so that when we have a situation such as this one, the water can be channeled in order to relieve the pressure on the other sources.

Our problem in that area is that we do not have enormous catchment areas— the dams’ capacity is too small. That is why one is caught up in an emergency situation much more quickly that in any other circumstances. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it should perhaps be remarked on that the hon member for Eastern Transvaal from the NPP did not bother to turn up for this debate. It seems to indicate that his party has no interest in water, which of course is the lifeblood of all the communities in South Africa.

Are you going to speak on his behalf?

Certainly not, sir. [Interjections.] The hon member who has just resumed his seat spoke of a conflict of interests in the Port Elizabeth area. I want to deal with that a little later in my speech.

I want to start off today by referring to recent newspaper reports concerning the use of water by the residents of Siyathemba township, which is situated two kilometres from Balfour in the Transvaal. The Balfour Town Council, which is controlled by the CP, summoned the mayor of Siyathemba to the municipal offices where he was told to stop Blacks from taking the White man’s water. The approximately 30 000 residents of Siyathemba have been without adequate water for the past eight months. Desperate residents have evidently had to fill buckets from taps in the town. There have been reports that the Whites in Balfour are selling water to them and that Black youths, sneaking to drink from so-called “White” taps in the Balfour suburbs, have been sjambokked. Even at a local church the external taps have been removed from the premises in an obvious attempt to frustrate efforts of residents of Siyathemba to quench their thirst.

That is terrible!

The council’s daily water allocation allows no water at all for Blacks. This is one of the most disgusting, terrible stories I have ever heard! Thirsty people are denied water, which is an absolute necessity for life, and the CP controlled council tells these people to stop using “White water”. Now, what is “White water”? I suppose the CP sees differences in the water that normal reasonable human beings are unaware of. Perhaps they see differences between White water, Coloured water, Indian water and Black water. I simply cannot believe the extraordinary way in which the minds of the hon members of the CP operate. What I find difficulty with is the sort of morality which induces a church to frustrate thirsty people who require water. This sort of action is a blot on the name of South Africa. This sort of uncivilised mentality is so indescribably ugly that I believe the vast majority of South Africans would and should condemn the conduct of this disgusting and selfish little minority who claim for themselves a resource which belongs to us all.

Our first reaction is that water supplies to Balfour residents should be diverted to Siyathemba, and then we will see those Whites doing a little pleading themselves for a basic commodity like water. I wonder what would happen if the boot was on the other foot.

I hope the hon the Minister will comment on this shameful episode. Perhaps he will give an undertaking that as a matter of urgency, action will be taken immediately to see that the residents of Siyathemba get water. Finally I want to express my own personal contempt for the despicable actions of these unchristian and uncivilised people in Balfour.

At the first biennial conference of the newly constituted Water Institute of South Africa the hon the Minister stated that the water resources of this arid land and subcontinent must be shared equitably among all interested states and territories. This of course also means that it must be shared equitably among all people in our subcontinent. I hope the hon the Minister will put this policy statement strictly and fairly into operation with regard to Balfour and Siyathemba.

I want to come back to a matter that I raised in this debate last year. It concerns possible developments along the Nyl River and its tributaries north of Pretoria and the possibility that serious damage could be done to the Nyl River flood plain if a dam is built on the Olifantspruit, which is the chief source of supply for Nylsvlei. Last year I explained to the hon the Minister that Nylsvlei is not only nationally but also internationally significant for ornithologists, as well as being a unique savannah ecosystem of importance to all ecologists and all environmentalists. The hon the Minister was kind enough to reply to me at some length in a letter sent to me during the recess in which he undertook to apply the most rigid standards before he allowed the building of such a dam. With respect—I realise the pressures on him in this regard—this did not quite answer my question. I wanted an undertaking that Nylsvlei would not be violated. I know the department has a tough task when allocating parity on total water resources among all users, but once a unique habitat like Nylsvlei has been destroyed it can never be restored. The world would forever be very much poorer as a result.

The hon member who spoke before me commented on the south Karoo/southern coastline/Port Elizabeth area. I believe this does deserve comment by the hon the Minister and he should tell us what the future is for Port Elizabeth. He should outline his long-term plans. A little earlier he talked about the immediate restrictions taking place. Inevitably there is a conflict of interests because Port Elizabeth itself has a great demand and the surrounding farming area and the Little Karoo also need this water.

Port Elizabeth has had a tough time of it economically and if industry is to be restricted, or even frightened off from coming to the area, it could be disastrous. Obviously farmers in the area have to be looked after as far as is humanly possible. However, if the demands of industries are such that they need it those farmers must be compensated.

The economic interests of the largest number of people must receive consideration when a decision is made as to where the limited water resources available are to be directed. The farmers’ lobby in Parliament, with respect, tends to be much stronger than any other, and I hope that this hon Minister will give careful consideration to this matter if and when he makes his difficult decision based on all the requirements so that the greatest number of people concerned get first call. One can only hope that good rains will alleviate this drought. We are, of course, all hopeful about the present weather situation there.

Finally I want to turn to what is, I suppose, a relatively minor matter. It is a problem that arises from time to time concerning pollution of run-off when fertilisers, pesticides, fungicides and herbicides are used on agricultural land. I am personally aware of a small problem that must be similar to problems being experienced all over the country. It concerns damage to the quality of water in farm dams and watercourses not registered in any possible way—very minor watercourses with small catchment areas.

In the specific case of which I have knowledge, a farmer has successfully stocked two farm dams with trout for decades—he is a fish farmer. The commencement of a highly intensive farming operation by a large concern on land which is largely in the catchment area of the dams appears to have polluted the water to the extent that the trout can no longer flourish, and indeed they die in the water.

To direct blame and prove anything at all is virtually an impossibility for individual farmers. Although fairly extensive tests have been conducted by water chemists, no conclusions can be reached without further very expensive and intensive tests which are way beyond the pocket of the individual farmer. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether machinery exists which would enable the department to carry out these tests and establish, one way or another, what has happened to the purity of this water. This may be a very small and unimportant matter, but it is a matter of life and death to the farmer concerned.

Mr Chairman, in the few minutes at my disposal today, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the critical water shortage in the Olifants River valley and other aspects in this connection, with the hon the Minister in the hope that he will be able to assist us speedily.

Before I discuss this, however, I wish to mention that two colleagues, the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation and the hon member for Vredendal, and I have, on a previous occasion had an appointment with the hon the Minister, along with interested parties from the Olifants River valley. We thank him for that. There was a very positive reaction from the hon the Minister. We appreciate that, but we wish to have the matter expedited.

Many towns and farms are dependent on this river. We are grateful for the hon the Minister’s announcement regarding the bringing of water to Graaffwater and surroundings. This is good news for us. I also wish to thank the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation for the role he played in this connection.

I have been asked, on behalf of our esteemed Chairman, Mr Sanders, to thank the hon the Minister on behalf of the communities of Heil-bron, Sandersville and Phiritona in the Free State, for the assistance in connection with representations addressed by the hon the Chairman of the House in the House of Representatives to the hon the Minister in connection with the writing-off of the debt for the Vaaldam-Heilbron area. I also wish to thank my leader, Rev Hendrickse, for his contribution. He put the case in Parliament. Lastly, I also thank the hon the Minister of Finance.

The Olifants River is the most important natural resource in our area, and we would like to have it stabilised, because this river experiences floods as well as droughts regularly. My appeal is for assistance in the installation of the above-mentioned storage capacity in the Olifants River valley as a State waterworks.

The aim of the scheme is twofold. Firstly, to stabilise the present requisite water supply so that the crisis being experienced at present can be relieved. Secondly, to achieve future development and the advantages implicit in this for the region and the State.

This area encompasses towns like Vredendal, Clanwilliam, Lambert’s Bay, Citrusdal, Graaff-water, Van Rhynsdorp, Wuppertal etc. This region has a population of 65 000 people, who live in an area comprising 2,1 million hectare. This region has more than its fair share of natural resources with the result that agriculture, and especially the irrigation industry, is by far the most important industry in this region.

Of the total irrigation schemes more than 90% are along the Olifants River. The development potential of secondary and tertiary industries emanating from the strong agriculture, is especially high. From a socio-economic regional study which was carried out in 1987 by the Olifants River RDA it appears that the development potential of the region is further enhanced by the following factors.

There is a favourable climate for the cultivation of various products which are presently very valuable for South Africa; an abundant high potential soil; a water source of exceptionally high quality which is presently not being fully utilised; a group of entrepreneurs who have been exposed for generations to the complexities of intensive irrigation farming, and an existing infrastructure. Industrialists can be attracted to Vredendal, which has already been identified as an economic growth point.

The region is currently experiencing an increasing crisis situation of which hon members are already aware. What is more the Olifants River is the dominant source of nourishment for the whole valley. Farms and towns are equally dependent on it.

In spite of a large volume of waste water during the winter months, as a result of insufficient storage there is not enough water when it is needed during the summer months. As a result the farmers cannot utilise their legal water rights to the maximum benefit of the region.

What is more these already critical shortages will reach disastrous proportions within the next five or six years, and I wish to elucidate the problem further. Because the catchment area of the region falls in a winter rainfall region, the largest river flow occurs outside the irrigation season. To assist the irrigation on the north side of the river, the Bulshoek and Clanwilliam Dams were built.

Upstream from the Clanwilliam Dam the irrigators are, however, totally dependent on the natural summer flow, which is no longer sufficient. The result is that a serious shortage develops just when water is needed the most, and in spite of the two storage dams the community downstream also experiences shortages because of the withdrawal upstream. This means that the inflow into the dams is insufficient to meet the needs.

As far as the demand and shortage for irrigation north of the Clanwilliam Dam is concerned, the irrigation area downstream from Bulshoek has approximately 10 000 hectares under irrigation. The water requirement, including the evaporation losses, is 167 million cubic metres, whereas the two dams only have a collective content of 127 million cubic metres. This already indicates a considerable shortage. To satisfy the total demand of 167 million cubic metres, a further inflow of at least 52 million cubic metres is needed during the irrigation season.

South of the Clanwilliam Dam, 5 700 hectares of water rights were awarded in 1987, where only approximately 3 500 hectares are under permanent crops. Without the plantings being in full production, increasing shortages are already being experienced every year. In order to utilise the total allocated water rights, at the least an additional 20 million to 30 million cubic metres would have to be supplied.

This situation, ie north and south of the Clanwilliam Dam, is a serious blow to the farmers in the region. As you know permanent crops have been planted in accordance with granted water rights. As these crops come into full production, the demand for water will necessarily increase.

According to estimates by the CSFRI, it is further expected that by 1993, when present young trees will be in full production, and more water will therefore be needed, there will already be a shortage from December to April. This is an untenable situation.

Because of this shortage there is no room for development and for the full exercising of rights. I want to assure hon members that the community wastes no water. There are proper management procedures, irrigation scheduling and water administration. Strict control is also applied so that prescribed quotas are adhered to. The situation is the same in the area to the north of the Clanwilliam Dam. The allocated water rights are 20% higher than the existing storage capacity. When approximately 80% of the water quotas are used, the dam is virtually empty and there is no inflow into the dam. In this area there are also considerable new plantings.

The crisis along the Olifants River therefore influences all producers of all products, to the south as well as to the north of the Clanwilliam Dam. A considerable demand for water for industries and mining is expected in the future. Furthermore, the area has at its disposal workable mineral deposits such as diamonds, limestone, marble, iron ore and graphite. The most delicious oranges, naartjies, grapes and tomatoes come from this region of which a large quantity is exported. The position of the community is, however, very frustrating.

The important point I wish to make is that annually 181 million cubic metres of water flow into the sea. This is 1,5 times the storage capacity of the Clanwilliam Dam. I am convinced that the hon the Minister will understand the frustration when such a large surplus is wasted every year while we face large losses because of inadequate storage facilities.

The consequences of the shortage can be divided into two categories, namely immediate losses and long-term consequences. The immediate consequence is serious damage to present crops with accompanying cash-flow problems. The northern area is increasingly becoming the vegetable garden for the Cape market. The long-term consequences are enormous losses on capital investments for farmers and permanent damage to permanent crops. This results in a total loss of income. Income in foreign exchange decreases and employment opportunities decline.

Hon members will notice that except for purely economic implications, social consequences also emanate from this. Because the agricultural sector is the largest employer in this region, a decrease in general economic activities will also have a seriously detrimental effect on existing employment. Because of the interdependence of the economy in the rural areas the effect always ripples wider than agriculture alone. The effect of the unemployment will hit the Coloured community the hardest because they form the largest portion of the population of the region. An increase in the unemployment rate results in many social consequences and this worsens the social problems already being experienced. These circumstances lead to a spirit of pessimism and division which can have serious social implications for the region and this mainly because of the instability of our water resources.

It is clear from this that an effective solution will have to be found as soon as possible. I wish to mention that most farmers in this region truly care about their workers. Sports facilities, housing, etc, prove this. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, to start with I should like to thank the hon the Minister for his kind words and also extend my sincere thanks for the fact that he makes it possible, in fact easy, for me to do this work. It is indeed a privilege to work with him.

I listened carefully to what hon members had to say in connection with various matters to which I shall reply at a later stage, at the close of the debate. At this juncture, however, I should just like to touch upon a few other matters. Some of these also link up with what hon members said in their speeches.

Firstly, concerning the question of floods in 1989, in February of this year it became apparent that we were again heading for a similar situation to that experienced in 1988 when exceptionally heavy rains began falling in the catchment areas of the Vaal and Orange Rivers. In the first three weeks of February between 100 mm and 200 mm of rain fell in the catchment areas of the Orange and Vaal Rivers and the Bloemhof Dam.

As a result of the exceptionally strong flow we also decided to administer the Vaal and Orange River systems as a single unit, on the one hand because of the flow and also as a result of the fact that these rivers eventually become one river, which also has a major effect on irrigation lower down and also on the supply to communities. Initially we tried to create flood capacity in the P K le Roux Dam by increasing the flow to 2 000 cumecs as a result of releasing water through the sluice-gates, whereas the inflow to the Verwoerd Dam was 5 800 cumecs at a stage when it could be held back there.

The handling and manipulation of this water was very important because in the Orange River we had only just completed the temporary dams, the dam walls had not yet stabilised and we could not safely release more than 3 500 cumecs of water into the river. Whilst we were still releasing this water from the P K le Roux Dam, the water flow again increased considerably, in the Vaal River system too, and we were compelled to close the sluices of the P K le Roux Dam again and to reduce the flow. When the flow again decreased in the Vaal River, we could again release water from the P K le Roux Dam, so that we could try to make provision for possible further rains in these catchment areas, something which fortunately did not happen. With this manipulation of the water, we were able to achieve a flow not exceeding 3 200 cumecs at Upington, something for which we are very grateful today.

In a letter to the department I have thanked the officials for the good work they did during this time, but I should like to have it placed on record here that we again thank these officials for the efficient way in which, as far as they were able, they controlled the water and the floods so well, in fact, that there was no loss of life or property whatsoever.

After every flood we learn more about dealing with other floods in the future, and that is why we are engaged, at present, in revising our national flood management policy. Governments have a social responsibility to assist their communities during exceptional natural disasters, and in the past, during flood disasters, the Government of the RSA has assiduously shouldered its relevant responsibilities.

Experience has taught us that complete control over the biggest floods is not possible in practice, just as providing comprehensively for extraordinary droughts is not possible by way of various water supply methods. To limit the damage done, the Department of Water Affairs has hitherto chiefly emphasised flood-plain zoning and guidelines for township development, the implementation of dam safety legislation, a certain degree of flood attenuation by making use of dams, warning systems and the expert management of dam systems during floods. It has nevertheless become increasingly clear over the years that floods in South Africa should not be regarded as unexpected.

Owing to the increasing damage as a result of population growth and development, it may also be necessary to adopt more comprehensive preventive measures to limit loss of life and property and facilitate and initiate a fair and dynamic distribution of the risk between the State and the public. In preparation for increasing development in the country, and because of the floods and extreme flood conditions in the recent past, it has been decided that the Department of Water Affairs should reconsider the present flood policy. We shall therefore also draw up a draft flood management policy and extend invitations to bodies that are interested in water control and supply, and we should like to receive comments from them.

In our complex First World and Third World population, and because of our constitutional and economic set-up, our draft policy ought to define the respective liabilities and responsibilities of individuals, communities and the authorities, and also the role of technical factors, financing, legislation and institutional and other arrangements.

The draft policy aims at limiting the loss of life and avoidable damage to the economy, fairly and dynamically distributing the risks between the State and the public and developing flood management criteria for State and community action and putting these into operation.

It has almost become customary for the hon the Minister of Water Affairs and of Land Affairs to talk about droughts or floods during the discussion of this Vote.

†Today, however, I have the dubious privilege of referring to both of these almost in the same breath. It is seldom that Mother Nature confronts us with both these extreme weather conditions in the same year, albeit in different regions of our country. I would now like to say a few words about the drought in the Eastern Cape.

Certain regions in the Eastern Cape are currently experiencing a severe drought with an estimated recurrence of once in 200 years. Although it is possible to make provision for such severe droughts, a totally unacceptable financial burden would be placed on the users who would have to meet the cost. A more economical alternative is to impose water restrictions when such infrequent droughts occur. Although water restrictions cause inconvenience and can be disadvantageous, they are per se not unacceptable and do not have to be avoided at all costs.

The construction of emergency schemes is a last resort, as in the case of the power stations in the Eastern Transvaal Highveld a few years ago. The situation in Port Elizabeth is receiving serious and continued attention. A Port Elizabeth drought committee, on which the Department of Water Affairs and the municipality of Port Elizabeth are represented and which acts in collaboration with the municipality of Uitenhage and farmers in the Gamtoos River area, has been established to monitor the situation and act accordingly.

As a first step all possible measures are being taken to reduce consumption in both the urban and irrigation areas to a minimum in order to make the best use of the remaining water supplies. An emergency supply scheme is being planned and designed concurrently so that it can be implemented in the shortest possible time if no alternative is possible.

Other smaller communities are being encouraged to overcome the drought problem by increased utilisation of ground water. Ground water resources should generally not be overutilised for irrigation purposes. Abstraction of ground water should be done with discretion and the normal recharging of underground sources should always be borne in mind. Abstractions that exceed the recharge rate may be justifiable for short periods, but the source should subsequently be allowed the chance of recovery.

In the present circumstances borehole water should be used mainly for household consumption and stockwatering in those areas where the necessary infrastructure or a distribution of irrigation water exists. The increasing shortage of water for urban and irrigation use in the Eastern Cape is being monitored by the Department of Water Affairs and assistance is being given where necessary.

*If hon members had listened to what I have just said, it could almost seem as if I am a Job’s comforter or am dealing with the lamentations of Jeremiah. That, however, is the dark side of the picture. There is, in fact, a brighter side, some good news too, particularly with regard to new schemes, to which the hon the Minister also referred. I now want to single out a few schemes. I should like to begin with the scheme which is, of course, situated in the best part of our country, ie the Lower Orange River. I should also just like to refer to the Kakamas extensions relating to the Lower Orange River Development Project.

Hon members will notice that the envisaged works which are to be undertaken at Kakamas, and in connection with which a White Paper was tabled earlier this week, are known as the Lower Orange River Development Project. This is the first time that this name is being used. Hon members all know about the Orange River Development Project as such. The components of this project are situated above the confluence of the Vaal and Orange Rivers. From there water is, inter alia, distributed to the Eastern Cape.

Although the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam and the P K le Roux Dam have stabilised the river flow, development in the Lower Orange River has, for the most part, taken place on the basis of private initiative, whilst existing State waterworks have been improved. With the Lower Orange River Development Project what is envisaged is a new irrigation extension for both Coloured and White farmers in this area.

The Kakamas extension will supply water to 5 600 ha of net irrigable land. Initially 20 000 ha of high-grade land was designated, but in the first phase only these 5 600 ha will be divided up into 140 plots and developed. The water source is, of course, the Orange River, supplemented by the P K le Roux Dam. Provision is also being made for main drainage works which will link up with these irrigation plots.

The area is, of course, pre-eminently suited to the cultivation of sultanas, and at present there is a tremendous shortage of dried fruit and sultana production, both locally and on the export market. As a result of the good demand from the Dried Fruit Board and the South Africa Dried Fruit Co-operative, this is the obvious and most suitable area for the production of good, high-quality sultanas.

The proposed development also has major socioeconomic benefits, and we foresee that 600 temporary job opportunities will be created during the construction phase, and 1 800 permanent job opportunities after completion of this scheme. The establishment of Coloured farmers on a portion of the proposed development, laying the foundation for a prosperous Coloured farming community, is also envisaged. The proposed project lends itself very favourably indeed to development in phases and will therefore be tackled in this manner. The cost of this, at 1989 prices, is approximately R110 million at present. The following scheme that I briefly want to refer to is the Kalahari East Rural Water Supply Scheme in the eastern portion of the Kalahari. The White Paper on that scheme was also tabled here during the past week. The purpose of this scheme is to provide water for domestic use and for livestock to 256 farms with a total surface area of 1 412 000 ha.

To make this possible, water is being abstracted from the Vaal-Gamagara Scheme at Kathu. The water is lifted 120 metres by being pumped to a higher level in the Langeberg Mountains, from whence gravity will draw it into a pipe-distribution system. That is the first phase, but in this phase reserve capacity is also being created for further development phases in the north-western and north-eastern part of this scheme, which has already been announced. These are the areas lying in the designated area. We also envisage supplying water to the Kalahari-Gemsbok National Park and to the Coloured community at Mier at a later stage.

Our most important objective, with this particular scheme, is firstly to provide, once and for all, drinking water for livestock in the remainder of this dry part of our country, the Kalahari. Our second objective involves the fact that the establishment of this scheme is in line with the Cabinet’s acceptance of the fact that the stabilisation of the Lower Orange River and the Northern Cape, as a result of the independence of South West Africa, should receive precedence. A very important objective, with the establishment of this scheme, is the stabilisation of this area.

We envisage starting with this scheme this year so that it will hopefully be completed by 1992-93. The estimated cost is approximately R77,4 million. As I have said, in the primary pipeline we are making provision for water to be supplied for the later phases. An additional R10,3 million of these costs is being budgeted for that purpose and will fall under this statutory subsidy of two thirds which the Cabinet has allocated to us.

Another important scheme which has also been announced, and to which I want to refer, is the Little Karoo Rural Water Supply Scheme. It has also recently been the subject of a White Paper. This scheme will supply water to Dysselsdorp and to the rural areas of the Olifants River and Gamka River valley for domestic use and livestock purposes. Subterranean water will be abstracted via boreholes at the Kammanassie Mountains near Dysselsdorp and at the Hoeberg Mountains near Calitzdorp.

The relevant communities will not be able to carry the full costs of the water, which is estimated at R1,82 per cubic metre for Dysselsdorp and R5,40 per cubic metre for the rural consumers. As a result we can only build the scheme if this could fall under the policy applicable for arid regions, in which the water is subsidised to such an extent that the relevant people will be able to afford it.

The scheme will be constructed by the Department of Water Affairs, but will be handed over to a water board or a regional services council, which is yet to be established, for the purposes of administering it. At 1989 prices the cost of the scheme is estimated at R36,9 million.

Another scheme to which I should like to refer is that of the Haarlem Irrigation Board near Joubertina. Here we want to supply both White and Coloured farmers with water via a joint irrigation board. The proposed scheme embodies a dam in the Groot River and a pipe distribution scheme to supply water for the existing irrigation development of 653 ha and new irrigation development of 462 ha. The estimated cost of this is approximately R10,8 million, on which a subsidy of one third will be paid.

The onus of redeeming a State loan over a certain period will be shared equally by the White and Coloured farmers, and the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture of the Administration: House of Representatives has already agreed to endorse the liability of the Coloured consumers. I think this scheme is proof of the possibility of having very ordered co-operation between White and Coloured farmers.

The aforementioned schemes are those on which decisions have already been taken. Then there is also a scheme about which a final decision has not yet been obtained and to which I should like to refer. This involves the stabilisation of the Pongola River.

After investigations had been carried out at 19 possible sites on the Pongola River, we initially came to the conclusion, on purely economic grounds, that we could build a dam at Jagtdrift. This is situated 16 km north-northwest of Paul-pietersburg. At 1989 prices this would cost approximately R53 million.

There were several representations from various communities, including the German-speaking community of Lüneberg and Braunschweig, and also the Evangelical Lutheran Missionary Society and other bodies. I also visited the area personally and conducted interviews with the relevant people. We have now come to the conclusion that we should possibly investigate the alternative, ie the Paris Dam in the Bivane River, which is a tributary of the Pongola River. Because of this the construction of the dam will have to be deferred for at least a year because we first want to decide whether we should construct this dam in the Bivane River or the original Jagtdrift Dam.

I merely want to say that this is not a question of our having been forced, by a few people, to relinquish some of our plans which, in our opinion, were the best and most economical. Here we are dealing with really large communities and towns which could definitely be effected. If we could construct an alternative and ultimately achieve the same goal, we are prepared to take a proper look at this in the interests of the communities concerned.

†I now would like to refer to our liaison with Asians, firstly with regard to the Isipingo lagoon. Last year I held discussions with my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates regarding the situation at the Isipingo lagoon. The two of us in fact visited the lagoon to gain first-hand knowledge of the situation.

The condition of the Isipingo lagoon is much improved and this improvement has resulted from concerted efforts by the Department of Water Affairs to establish an effective liaison committee, on which the department, the Um-geni Water Board, KwaZulu and the Boroughs of Amanzimtoti and Isipingo are represented. Industries in the Prospecton area were also made more aware of the impact of their activities upon the environment and their co-operation has been obtained.

Broken sewage pipes in the KwaZulu/Umlazi area have been repaired and good rains have flushed out the lagoon. The gate valves, through which water is diverted to the lagoon from the Isipingo River, are now operated on a fully open basis and this has resulted in more fresh water reaching the lagoon. The removal of sand from the mouth of the lagoon has also improved the tidal interchange.

Since the sea provides the only resource of additional water for the lagoon this option should be studied to determine if ways cannot be identified to improve the tidal interchange to secure a lasting improvement in the condition of the lagoon.

With regard to irrigation, the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture of the Administration: House of Delegates deals with matters concerning irrigation and is in this respect in contact with the Regional Director: Natal of the Department of Water Affairs.

Recently a request was received to investigate the possibilities of irrigation from the Hammars-dale Dam in the Sterkspruit. This matter is still receiving attention. The Department of Water Affairs also assisted a number of Asian irrigators to establish a more efficient irrigation scheme below the Hazelmere Dam. This new scheme should be in operation in the very near future. In the meantime the water is still being abstracted from the dam basin but this abstraction will cease once this new scheme has been commissioned.

The Director-General: Water Affairs is also in regular contact with his colleague the Director-General: Administration for the House of Delegates regarding matters of common interest and I am sure that this liaison will be to the benefit of all concerned. I am sure that closer and more regular contact on more levels will still become the order of the day.

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Deputy Minister prepared to take a question?

Mr Chairman, I just want to say that I am going to react to hon members’ speeches at a later stage, and then the hon member can ask me a question and I shall gladly answer it.

Mr Chairman, it is a great honour to speak after the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister. The department is indeed very fortunate to have two such Ministers at the helm. They are not at all apathetic—they do their work.

I lost my buttonhole and wondered what I would look like without one. I thought then that I would sit and look at the women, such as Mrs Van Wyk and the two women who assisted with the exhibition. Unfortunately I cannot say the same of the men. There is nothing to look at as far as they are concerned. I welcome them to this debate in any case.

Where did you get that flower?

It is a fresh one.

The preface of the book Management of the Water Resources of the Republic of South Africa, published by the Department of Water Affairs, contains the following words spoken by John Ruskin:

I shall come back to this; this is the reduce that I am going to use.

It is then pointed out how essential water is for life, economic development and progress, and that the increasing demand for water in the Republic has to be satisfied with restricted resources. It is also mentioned that the joint utilisation of the available and affordable waterworks can best be accomplished if consumers understand the complexity of water resource development in South Africa. I understand that too, but I want to ask a few questions.

Before I come to these few questions and requests, I want to say thank you first. I do not think one should always stand begging; sometimes one should also give thanks and credit to those who deserve it. Coming from the Bree River Valley— the hon the Deputy Minister said it was the most beautiful valley—I want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister, the Director-General and the officials for the access we have to them and for their doors that are open to us at all times. I must mention, however, that when I telephoned the secretary of the former Director-General one morning, she said: “Good Lord, is it you again!” [Interjections.]

I have great appreciation for our hon Deputy Minister and for his insight and understanding. One can see that he is level-headed and astute when it comes to dealing with representations.

Not always!

Yes, always. I want to tell that hon member something.

No, it was not I! [Interjections.]

No, but then you must shut your trap! [Interjections.] I received representations from an irrigation board last year …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary for the hon member to say: “You must shut your trap”?

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman, but he must not waste my time.

Last year I received representations from an irrigation board. I made a photostat of this and sent it to the hon the Deputy Minister accompanied by a letter. I did not read it too carefully myself, because often we send representations to Ministers, and then have to make enquiries months later to find out what has become of them. At the time I thought I had more than sufficient time to read these representations. That same afternoon the hon the Deputy Minister invited me to coffee; he said he would pay and we could discuss the representations. I did not know what they contained, however! I felt very awkward. I thank the hon the Deputy Minister. These days I read like mad before I send anything through!

There is a reasonable amount of water in our valley—I am referring to the Bree River Valley—for own consumption, but not really for use elsewhere. There are large surfaces that have to be irrigated by means of pump schemes. One of the largest is under construction at present, and should come into operation at the end of the year. We say many thanks for this. A large section of my constituency will be transformed into an oasis. I invite those hon members who are sitting here without cards— the cards still have to come—to attend the inauguration towards the end of the year. It is going to be simply …

Great!

Great, yes. I do not want to say what I am thinking, because then that bloke (klong) will make me withdraw it again! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member refer to another hon member as a “bloke” (klong)?

How old are you? [Interjections.] I shall withdraw it, Sir.

Most of the pump schemes suffer financially, mainly as a result of the high electricity tariffs. A number of irrigation boards have submitted petitions to Parliament for assistance, and I appeal that they be considered sympathetically. It would be to the Government’s benefit to keep those farmers on the land. They have the knowledge and are enterprising, but the shoe is pinching. A question that is often asked is why these schemes were initiated. In my opinion if these schemes had not been built, those farmers would have left the farms ages ago, and the thousands of related employment opportunities would have been lost too. These schemes need only a little push, and they will never look back. These are not election stories; what I am proclaiming is gospel.

Which chapter?

Egypt 2, verse 3. [Interjections.] It is not the farmers’ fault that the river flows down in the valley and that the land is up against the hill where gravity fights the water. Nor is it their fault that it has stopped raining. If I could, I would have changed the world a bit, but I am too old to do that.

At the beginning of my speech I said the work we do should be such that our descendants are grateful to us for it. My father always said one should rather take a man’s wife than his water. Water distribution is a sensitive matter that must be handled cautiously, just like a woman.

The mere fact that there is talk of a certain sector’s claim implies that the various sectors of the economy are competing for the available water. At the moment it is being said that water that has been reserved for agriculture may be allocated or loaned to the Cape metropolis on a temporary basis. That is water from the Thee-waterskloof. We are afraid that this temporary allocation may become a permanent one, and then our descendants cannot and will not be grateful to us.

Hon members may say that I come from the Bree River Valley and that this so-called temporary allocation comes from the other side of the mountain. We have made a sacrifice already in the form of the pipeline through the Du Toits-kloof tunnel which will supply Wemmershoek and Theewaterskloof with water. I want to address a friendly request to the hon the Minister today to assure us that water which has been allocated to agriculture will remain water for agriculture.

Ministers come and go, and so do officials—I believe everyone does, also our present two hon Ministers. They will not be here forever. We must preserve the water of the Boland as a treasure for the Boland. It is the only resource we have, with our land, our beautiful climate and our wonderful people. These people have made the Boland and earn a great deal of foreign exchange thanks to this water. If we do not keep this water here, we are not going to be able to keep the people here, and that will be the end of the Boland.

Mr Chairman, in this debate on Water Affairs, I was quite concerned a while ago that the hon member for Bryanston was going to wet himself.

I would just like to state the facts with regard to Balfour, as we have them from the town treasurer. In Balfour, thousands of squatters—at least 15 000 according to estimates—have moved in, and the water supply to the existing Black town is totally ineffective. The pipe is too thin and they are in the process of laying a thicker pipeline to that Black town.

As a result of the thin pipe and the high water consumption, the water level in the storage tanks decreases so that during the day not enough water is able to pass through the thin pipe. There is then no water during the day, and at night there is plenty again. At the moment a thicker pipe is being laid and there is no question of there being White or Black water, grey water or whatever type of water.

If that word is used in the context in which the hon member mentioned it, then I repudiate it. I do not think it should be that way. However, the other facts were completely distorted. As a result of the abolition of influx control, which the hon member muttered and moaned about, a large number of new inhabitants arrived there—at least 15 000. No provision was made for the influx of people which could take place there as a result of the abolition of influx control.

You are racists!

Mr Chairman, someone here accused me of racism. I want to give him the assurance that he can make enquiries anywhere in the world, and if I am a racist, then he is a Coloured.

I would rather be a Coloured than a racist!

I want to go further and speak about the question of water in the area which in fact falls under my constituency and about the effect which mining has on water there. As a result of the new mining methods, the pillar extraction method …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Did the hon member intend the word “Coloured” to have any connotation?

Mr Chairman, I attached no connotation to it. I merely said that if I was a racist, that hon member was a Coloured. That hon member himself does not attach a negative connotation to that word. If that were the case, he should be sitting on the other side of the House. If an incorrect conclusion was drawn, I would like to tell the hon member that I did not mean it, and I apologise if he drew any conclusion from what I said.

As a result of this new method of mining, whereby the mine’s roof is allowed to subside after the pillars have been extracted, we have a total disruption of the uppermost level of ground below which the lowest part has already been hollowed out, and this has a very great effect on the water table and the water which would normally be found in the uppermost level, and we have a situation in which disturbances of drinking water and boreholes take place. We are all aware that the mining of minerals and coal is in the interests of the country, and there has already been a great deal of discussion in this regard in the other departments. Just as the farmer is not entitled to engage in wasteful exploitation, the mining industry is also not entitled to engage in wasteful exploitation which could well result in this happening.

The other problem is that of the acidification of water which is pumped out of coal mines. Here I must say that the control over this is reasonably good. Sasol, in particular, goes to a lot of trouble in this regard at Secunda. However, the fact is that acidification takes place and that there is water which is unsuitable for human and animal consumption. In Kendal we even find that it is unsuitable for gardening or for any form of irrigation. That is acidification which takes place. The necessary control is not always present, and we want to ask whether the hon the Minister could order further control in this regard.

Mr Chairman, I do not plan to reply to the hon member for Bethal. Up till now the debate on water affairs was a pleasant one. A little politics crept in here, which was slightly distasteful. I think what worries us is actually the attitudes of people. I do not want to say anything about the reasons for the situation in Balfour, because I do not know anything about it. I would just like to see that the attitudes which are reflected in the articles, as they are reported, were not really so negative. If they are correct, it is a bad day for the RSA.

I want to say a few words. To begin with I want to heartily congratulate the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and the department on the department’s 75th birthday. With that I also want to congratulate the department on the assignment which it sets itself, or to put it differently, its mission, namely: “To ensure the availability and the provision of water at national level”. I would also like to wish the hon the Minister and his department every success. It is a formidable task, particularly in a time of high costs, few capital resources and a rapidly increasing water consumption in a country with a relatively low rainfall and limited surface area, as well as limited subterranean water sources. With that, there are always urgent submissions in the RSA for the provision of water, as we heard repeatedly again this morning in this debate.

Water is life. Who could be more aware of that than our people in the barren interior? I believe that water, the conservation of sources, the storage of as much water as possible and the optimum use thereof is a matter of national importance, as is effectively spelt out by the department’s mission. The principle of user pay is supported, but I would like to come to the concept of the user and the price.

At the moment, the State contributes 30% to the construction costs of dams as its contribution to the creation of infrastructure for the country. The balance of the capital costs is divided between the physical consumers of water—in other words the water which is taken from the dams—and the maintenance and running costs are then included to determine the water costs per system or scheme.

It is common knowledge that of the 65 agricultural schemes, the revenue of 58 of the schemes is lower than the maintenance and running costs, and that there is therefore no question of capital redemption.

I would like to argue that it is the maintenance as well as the running costs of schemes in particular, as well as other input-cost factors, which result in costs being so high that under normal circumstances it is often not more profitable for irrigators to produce their products with this expensive water. My request to the hon the Minister is that he should consider subsidising the running costs of schemes by 30% as well, where it is necessary, because these costs are also incurred in the national interest. By that I actually mean that apart from the agriculturalists who use water, there is also a large component of the society, which I will indicate to the hon the Minister in a moment, which benefits from the total system, and I think that we should look into dividing that portion of the costs, and also that of the total community, on the same basis as the building or capital costs.

Water in dams and the provision of water for usage are part of an infrastructure which makes a decisive contribution towards the socioeconomic development of the country, the provision of employment opportunities, the upgrading of the quality of life, and also towards the curtailing of increasing urbanisation. We must use this national asset to provide the necessary rural infrastructure, so that as large a number of the population as possible can be accommodated there. The costs of such a programme are far lower than the ever-increasing costs of providing services to urbanised people in a far more expensive environment than the rural areas. I really believe that this idea corresponds to the reasoning of the Claassens Committee with regard to the determining of water tariffs in that report, paragraph 3.2.2.

Paragraph 5.1.3 of the same report also addresses the socio-economic aspects, but more with a view to the consumer himself. I believe that these considerations should also be applicable in regions where the State must carry its portion of the running costs or must assist in accepting responsibility on behalf of other beneficiaries. The hon the Minister told us this morning that we were becoming unconventional—we were building empty dams. Perhaps one should look at the cost coverage aspect of our infrastructure for water in that way.

If hon members will permit me to do so, I want to refer briefly to the case of the Orange-Vaal Irrigation Board, which is now administering the Orange-Douglas Government Water Scheme, as an example, just to show hon members what the effect of this scheme was.

Irrigation development in the Douglas area is among the oldest in the Republic. The addition of the small irrigation scheme was started as early as 1890, and was gradually improved, but it remained dependent on water from the Vaal River from the beginning. I would consider that right to Vaal River water to be an established one.

As development increased along and from the Vaal River, the Douglas irrigation was placed under increasing pressure, particularly with regard to the quality of water, and during the recent drought also with regard to the availability of water.

The emergency scheme which was built in 1984 by the irrigators and the Douglas Co-operative, saved the entire community from ruin. If that scheme had not been built at that stage, that entire area of Douglas would have been lost. It had a tremendous influence on the socio-economic stability of that entire region.

One must take into account the advantages which the irrigators enjoy. There were many advantages for the irrigators after the new canal was built. One thinks of fresh water and available water. When one takes these advantages into account, one sees that the costs of Orange River water now amount to R50 per year per hectare, as opposed to R8,50 per year when it was still the Vaal River water, and this makes a great difference to the input costs of irrigators and as a result also to the profit margin. The fact is that the Vaal River system has been relieved of the necessity of providing water to the Douglas irrigators.

The Vaal River water which must be obtained from the Bloemhof Dam to provide water to the lower region of the Douglas area, is expensive water. It has to travel a long way. I am told that the water only reaches Douglas once in every five times that it is released. Then there is also the question of the release of water from the Bloemhof Dam to wash the river and replace the salt water with fresh water. The fact that the Orange canal was built, is therefore a great relief for the Vaal River system.

This fact also has a great socio-economic advantage for other regions upstream from Douglas along the Vaal River. We all know how much the country must spend in order to have sufficient water available in the Vaal River system. The Fish-Sunday Project is also a project which was mentioned by hon members this morning. Other hon members also made contributions in this regard. It is therefore not necessary for me to go into it any further. It is quite clear what the effect of the Fish-Sunday Project is on the community at large in that area. I therefore want to make an appeal to the effect that we should look into the running and maintenance costs of systems to provide certain places with water. The costs must not be carried by the irrigators alone. The costs must be distributed among the community at large.

Finally, allow me to express my thanks to the Director-General of Water Affairs. In his report brief mention was made of the provision of water to De Aar. The hon the Minister and his department undertook to ensure that the provision of water to De Aar would be permanent and that a pipeline would be laid from the Orange River if it became necessary. De Aar is the major town of the Upper Karoo Regional Services Council and a declared growth point. There need be no more uncertainty with regard to water provision to De Aar. The town can now develop into a worthy major town and growth point in its region.

I would also like to express my thanks to the department for the further investigations into an expansion of irrigation under the Orange-Douglas-Government Water Scheme, the upgrading of irrigation infrastructure in Douglas and the further upgrading of the Sarel Hayward Canal.

Mr Chairman, I would like to react to a few speeches made here. The hon the Minister will refer to some speeches in his reply. He will also reply to the hon member for Witbank.

I now come to what the hon member for Northern Cape said. It is true that the hon member referred to the question of old age. We are not saving water for our old age. However, we do have water which we must preserve for future generations. There is a great difference between saving water for one’s old age and providing for future generations. However, I am sure the hon member regarded it in the same light. He apologised, and we accept it.

We have repeatedly discussed the provision of water from the Orange River to Graaff-Reinet. The main point here is not that there is no water or that we are stingy with the water but the enormous cost of providing water to those particular areas. The hon member for Fish River has arranged for a meeting next week with the hon the Minister to discuss the provision of water in this particular area.

The hon member for Humansdorp—many hon members have had to apologise because the debate on agriculture is being held in another Chamber and we understand that—devoted his speech to the water supply in the Eastern Cape area.

†The hon member for Bryanston also referred to the water situation in the Eastern Cape and therefore it will be dealt with in the same breath. The hon the Minister will be dealing with the rest of his speech.

*Supplying water to the Eastern Cape has become a very topical matter and the hon member for Humansdorp referred to two particular aspects, namely the replanning of water, and a possible emergency scheme.

To begin with, I want to say, as I indicated in my speech, that we cannot provide for extraordinary droughts in South Africa. We cannot build dams which will supply sufficient water in droughts lasting from 100 to 200 years. This will make the burden on the consumers of that water too heavy.

We have, however, realised that there is a problem in the Eastern Cape. Things were not really going too badly for them. I am referring in particular to the supply of water to the agricultural sector. In the four years from 1984 to 1987 they received their full quota and also had the opportunity to buy water. In 1988-89 they received 70% of their quota and 10% has been given to them provisionally in the present water year. This, however, applies only if it does not rain. The weather pattern indicates, and we sincerely hope this is true, that the farmers in that particular area will not have to be satisfied with only 10% rain.

The measure which has been introduced with regard to that particular area involved, as I said in my speech, the appointment of a drought committee with representation from various bodies. They monitor the whole question of water distribution in that particular area. As we became aware that it was really necessary to pay attention to that particular area, we took matters further. A scientific enquiry and re-evaluation are being done at present concerning the availability of water in the area and the question whether the systems in the Eastern Cape are really sufficient to provide for domestic and agricultural needs.

Many accusations are being levelled against the Municipality of Port Elizabeth. I briefly want to state the case of the municipality. Under normal circumstances the water supply in Port Elizabeth is virtually assured and guaranteed. One cannot expect them to give up their sources without further ado and use expensive water from the Orange River. Hon members must understand that the tariffs they would have had to pay would have devolved on the consumer. The consumers are their voters as well, and I have never heard of a popular municipality or town council. They always make mistakes as far as their ratepayers are concerned. Should they, in spite of the fact that they still have water available at that stage, start earlier with schemes which would mean expensive water for them, one can expect that they and their people would be dissatisfied. I also think that the Municipality of Port Elizabeth realised that the prospect we had to make water from the Orange River available to them at a very much later stage is no longer viable and that consideration must be given to bringing water from the Orange River at an earlier stage.

The hon member spoke about an emergency scheme. An emergency scheme was designed to provide Port Elizabeth with water from Barkly Bridge. Everything now depends on what is going to happen in the next couple of months. If the drought continues one can expect the emergency scheme to be implemented. I would like to point out that the cost of this emergency scheme will be for the account of the Municipality of Port Elizabeth. Only under very extreme circumstances, for example if this municipality did not have the necessary funds and if it had been in the national interest to supply Port Elizabeth with water, would the State have given some form of financial support.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that this is an emergency scheme which, as the hon member for Humansdorp said, could fit in later on with larger planned schemes. It will be able to supply Port Elizabeth with water for a long time and it will be able to improve the position of the farmers of the Gamtoos, on condition that we do not expect Port Elizabeth to give its cheap water to the farmers of the Gamtoos while it has to pay for expensive water to replace that cheap water. This will therefore amount to a process of negotiation between the farmers of the Gamtoos and the Municipality of Port Elizabeth to acquire this water.

To summarise what the hon member said, I want to say that replanning is taking place at present. A scientific enquiry and re-evaluation of the water supply in that particular area is being undertaken. This is an emergency scheme which can be implemented on reasonably short notice if this situation continues. This all amounts to a process of negotiation between the Municipality of Port Elizabeth and the farmers of the Gamtoos area.

The hon member for Wuppertal referred to the Olifants River and devoted a large part of his speech to motivating why it is necessary to supply the irrigation area of the Olifants River with water. He referred to the contribution this particular area makes to agriculture. He also pointed out the basic problem, ie that winter rainwater is available to a summer rainfall area. Provision will therefore have to be made for large storage capacities for a contribution in summer.

In this case I can report in a positive vein and say that a few weeks ago we had a meeting with the irrigation board of Citrusdal. We came to an agreement with them that they would investigate the building of the Rosendal Dam higher up in the river as a short-term or interim solution for the particular area. They will publish a report on this and should this scheme seem viable they will carry it out. They will apply for loans and if we approve the scheme in principle they can also claim a specific subsidy.

In the meanwhile the Department of Water Affairs is continuing with its planning and investigation into the possible raising of the Clanwilliam Dam wall, which will in fact compensate for the volume of water which will be cut off by the Rosendal Dam. Therefore the possible building of the Rosendal Dam is not the final solution as far as the water supply in the Olifants River Dam is concerned. The long-term planning is still valid, ie that we will build a large dam at Keerom, where we will have a system with which the Rosendal Dam can link up.

I should also like to thank the hon member for Worcester for the fact that he is at least grateful. However, he also expressed his concern about the allocation of agricultural water from the Theewaterskloof Dam. We appreciate the fact that the hon member is worried but I would like to assure him that the allocation of water from that particular source has already been done. A particular allocation has been done for agriculture and the rest is of course for industrial as well as for domestic purposes.

I want to tell the hon member that we have made the allocation and the water is being borrowed, but the hon member should also consider the advantage we will gain by allocating agricultural water which is not being used at this stage for particular domestic uses in Cape Town. The hon member knows that we earn considerably more money when this water is sold for domestic consumption than we earn if this water is sold for agricultural purposes. Meanwhile the cost allocation from the Theewaterskloof Dam is reduced for all consumers, when we can utilise the water which is in reserve there at the moment until such times as it is needed for agricultural purposes.

No one, not the hon the Minister, nor department, nor I, can give guarantees for eternity. Another Government or other Ministers can come along and draw a line through everything, but what I can tell the hon member is that while we are here and while we are able to do so, we assure the hon member that we will not take water reserved specifically for agriculture and give it to Cape Town for domestic use.

I do not want to refer to the political remarks made by hon members because to me they look like altercations. However, I want to tell the hon member for Bethal that he really has reason to worry as far as the water situation in that particular area is concerned. I assume that he is aware that a committee has been appointed to investigate the high extraction coal mining in that area. I am also privileged to serve on that committee. The Deputy Minister of Agriculture is the chairman of that committee. I just want to mention that reasonable progress has been made in this particular area.

At the moment I do not want to say anything about the question of acid rain. I can merely tell hon members that the hon the Minister of Agriculture has on various occasions also expressed his concern about this acid rain to which the hon member referred. We shall have to do more research in this connection and if information becomes available the department will consider how to inform hon members about this issue.

The hon member for De Aar mentioned something to which the hon the Minister should like to react, and that is the question of tariffs. I thank hon members for their contributions and I am now prepared to reply to the question of the hon member for Wuppertal.

Order! The hon member for Wuppertal may ask his question.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I should like to know what is happening about the Lesotho Highlands Water Project.

The hon the Minister said he was going to talk about it. The hon the Minister will therefore reply to the question of the hon member.

Mr Chairman, before replying to some of the contributions, I should like to say a few words about certain issues. I want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister for the excellent way in which he has replied to the debate thus far.

Firstly, one cannot discuss water without also discussing where that water comes from. I am referring specifically to our catchment areas and our mountain catchment areas that are of special importance to us because to a very large extent they are the sources of our run-offs.

From time to time the nature of our mountain catchment areas are—I do not want to say damaged—altered by fires. In the past it was customary to allow farmers limited grazing where regrowth had taken place, after proper consideration by the Department of Agriculture, silviculturists and nature conservationists. Recently we had fires in the Cedarberg, and we received requests, from the Department of Agriculture too, to allow certain limited grazing rights there. These were granted. The normal procedure was followed; there was nothing sinister about the whole affair. However, reports have been published in the Press over the last day or two which create the impression that conflict has arisen between the Department of Environment Affairs and the Provincial Administration, which is responsible for the administration of the mountain catchment areas. I should just like to take this opportunity to say that there is no conflict between my department and the Administrator or among the various administrations.

†Mr Chairman, I would also like to mention that the Water Research Commission will be reconstituted this year. I take this opportunity to thank the present members of the commission for their selfless and highly-esteemed contributions. There is one person, however, whom I would like to single out this year, namely the chairman, Dr J P Kriel. Since its inception in 1971, Jaap Kriel has been involved with the Water Research Commission in a leading role of some nature. As the then Secretary for Water Affairs, he was not only instrumental in establishing the commission, but for many years also served on it as an ex officio member. A few years after his retirement from the Department of Water Affairs he assumed the chairmanship of the commission in 1985.

Those hon members who know Dr Kriel will also know that he has fulfilled and still fulfils this task with devotion. His deep insight, leadership and humanity are an inspiration to all in the field of water research. Allow me to thank Dr Kriel most sincerely for the many years of invaluable service he has put into this task. A new chairman will, of course, be nominated in due course.

Hon members who are in possession of the annual report of the commission, which was tabled a week or more ago, will find it interesting reading. It gives in a nutshell inter alia the projects which the commission is dealing with. I shall therefore not dwell on the subject, but I must add that I have great respect for the work done by Mr Odendaal, the chief executive officer, his staff and the research agencies involved in the numerous projects currently under way.

I think it is necessary that I comment, also in response to a question asked by the hon member for Wuppertal, on the Lesotho Highlands Water Project as regards the progress made and certain highlights in this connection. The optimisation of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project has been finalised, and the final form of the first phase has been determined. Except for certain concrete tests, the designs and the geotechnical investigations have also been finalised. The contract documents are nearing completion. The target date for awarding the tenders is 15 May 1989. A financing plan has been drawn up by financial advisers, and—very important— the World Bank still supports the project.

The prospect that the project will be financed at terms acceptable to the RSA is favourable. The estimate of costs for the completion of the first phase stands at R2 500 million at 1988 prices, with an amount of R179 million already spent.

As far as access routes to the various sections of the project are concerned, the southern access route from Thaba Tseka to the Katse Dam is practically complete with only rounding-off remaining. A new bridge across the river below the Katse Dam has already been inaugurated.

These structures were financed by the Development Bank of Southern Africa. Funds from this bank are also being used for the construction of the northern access road to the Katse Dam. The road between Fouriesburg and Caledonspoort is being reconstructed by the Provincial Administration of the OFS. New border bridges at Caledonspoort and Ficksburg are nearing completion.

The tenders for the accommodation of the construction staff at the Katse Dam site have just been awarded. A considerable number of South African and foreign contractors have so far shown their interest in the project by registering or applying for pre-qualification.

A large number of consulting engineering firms from South Africa have been involved in the design of the Katse Dam, the tunnels, the access roads and other infrastructure as well as supervision of the construction.

Services such as advice on insurance are also being rendered by a South African firm. The CSIR and the Portland Cement Institute are involved with material and hydraulic tests. South African contractors are involved in the majority of tenders already awarded. I think we can really be proud of what has been achieved so far.

However, the Lesotho Highlands Water Project must be funded, as I have said, and therefore an increase in the levy on water supplied from the Vaal River is also on the cards. In terms of the Water Act I levied a charge of two cents—with effect from 1 April 1988—on each cubic metre of water supplied from any Government waterwork in the Vaal River, from the Grootdraai Dam to the confluence of the Vaal and Orange Rivers.

The charge does not apply to any such water supplied or made available free of charge by the Government or any water extracted for agricultural purposes. The funds raised by means of the charge are used to partially finance the financial obligations of the RS A in terms of the treaty with the government of Lesotho on the Lesotho Highlands Water Project.

The purpose of the early implementation of the levy is to prevent a sudden large increase in water tariffs when the first water is delivered by the project, and in the long term to reduce the water tariff which will apply.

*We do not want to shock people with sudden tariff hikes. That is why we are doing this gradually.

†The portion of the project situated in the RSA will be constructed by the Trans-Caledon Tunnel Authority. The RSA is, in terms of the treaty, also liable for the payment of all costs incurred by the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority in respect of that portion of the project relating to the supply of water to the RSA. The Government has decided that the tunnel authority must meet this obligation on behalf of the RSA and recoup this from the consumer.

*In order to carry out the objectives of the levy it is necessary with effect from 1 October 1989—I do not know whether that is before or after the election—to increase the levy from two cents per cubic metre to four cents per cubic metre, because costs will rise dramatically since the project is now entering the construction phase. We did, however foresee this. Based on the estimated consumption figure of 780 million cubic metres, after deduction of the free allocations, this will involve an estimated income of R31,2 million per annum for the tunnel authority. A report to Parliament on this issue is being prepared at present.

Following on this, and as requested by the hon member for De Aar, I should like to say something about the Government’s revised water tariff policy. The Department of Water Affairs’ water tariff policy has been reconsidered over the past two years. Certain principles of the existing policy have been reaffirmed and new principles have been included.

The basic principles are as follows. Firstly, the provision of State supply schemes on economic principles remains unchanged. This has always been part of our water tariff policy. Secondly, scheme-related tariffs and taxes will remain unchanged and the tariffs levied will reflect the cost of water as a scarce resource.

Innovations in regard to policy are the following. All accumulated shortages as at 1 April 1988 will be discounted for the purposes of future tariff determinations. Hon members who have had the privilege of serving in the Select Committee on Public Accounts will know that year after year the Auditor-General reports a never-ending list of outstanding capital amounts—shortages that arose with schemes. Some of them date back to the beginning of the century. These are old amounts that are still being carried forward. We did, in our wisdom, consider this issue many years ago. The question was, in fact, asked in the committee when I had the privilege of serving on it, whether it was really necessary to keep carrying these old amounts forward. It did not make sense. We have now decided to discount these accumulated amounts as from 1 April 1988 when we come to the new tariff determinations. Perhaps this is another way of saying that they have been written off. Be that as it may, the fact remains that we are going to discount them.

In the case of water for urban and industrial purposes we shall apply the principle that, firstly, in respect of existing schemes, except those in respect of which specific consumer agreements have already been concluded, a minimum of 30% of the cost of the dam will be regarded as the State’s contribution to, inter alia, the creation of recreational facilities and infrastructure, which will be disregarded when tariffs are determined, provided that in the case of new schemes the relevant white papers specifically indicate which component of the cost will be discounted for this purpose. Where water for urban and industrial purposes is supplied from schemes constructed for specific consumers and payment has been arranged by means of agreement, these agreements will remain valid. For new schemes established for specific consumers, similar agreements will be arranged beforehand.

Thirdly, where during a specific year tariffs are kept low artificially by the State, as well as when income shortages occur as a result of water restrictions imposed by the Minister, such shortages will not be capitalized for tariff determination purposes. In other words, this is, once more, another way of saying that we are writing them off.

Fourthly, in cases where the purpose for which the scheme was designed does not materialize— this can also happen—the capital repayment portion of the tariff will be determined on the entire design supply of the scheme and shortages arising thus will not be capitalized. Fifthly, income shortages that arise for reasons other than those I have mentioned, will be capitalized for tariff purposes.

In cases where water is supplied for agricultural purposes, the position is that, firstly, tariffs are based on the eventual recovery of maintenance, operating and improvement costs. Only part of the capital cost is recovered when the community’s capacity to pay justifies this, and this is what is important. Secondly, all annual expenses that are not recovered, are discounted when tariffs are determined.

†Mr Chairman, I would have liked, if I had time, to refer to the degree of privatisation that we have achieved in the Department of Water Affairs. However, I will leave that aside for the time being, because I want to refer to certain aspects raised by certain hon members.

*The hon member for Witbank initially indicated to me that he would not be present. However he is present and I am very pleased. I want to say to him that the Moses River Dam is receiving our urgent attention and will hopefully be included in next year’s budget. I should like to say a few words about the rainfall stimulation issue that was raised by the hon member. I think it is important that this should be said. The object of the research that we are at present conducting on rainfall stimulation is to detect and research all possible effects—not only the positive effects that this may have, but also negative effects.

I have a personal philosophy on research on rainfall stimulation that I should like to share with the Committee. By the year 2030 or 2040 our children will have utilized the full potential of all the water available in South Africa. Then they shall have to look towards only three remaining water sources if the country is to develop any further. They shall have to look at the Zambezi River. An enormous project is possible. It is physically possible to bring water from the Zambezi to South Africa, or they shall have to consider the desalination of sea water, which is also physically possible. In fact, we are making very good progress with our research on the desalination of water. The other remaining source would be to look at the moisture that the dear Lord provides us with in the air every day and possible methods of utilizing this.

I happened to have two uncles both of whom— and I address this remark to the hon member for Witbank—were moderators of the NG Church. The one was in SWA and the other one here in the Cape. Both came from the dry North West. Both of them said to me on different occasions that if we do not use science to bring to the earth this enormous amount of moisture that the dear Lord gives us every day, we shall have to pay the price. That was their view as theologists. I do not know how the hon member for Witbank sees this issue. He, too, is a theologist. Perhaps he can tell us how he sees the matter. Actually I would be very interested to hear his views. From a theological viewpoint my personal opinion is that man should rule over creation as instructed by the Bible. That was the instruction that was given at the time of creation. We must, however, act responsibly.

On one occasion I held a meeting at Bethlehem. We have a project there, too. I met the farmers in co-operation with the SA Agricultural Union. We had an in-depth but pleasant discussion on this research project. I said to them on that occasion: “Friends, we should conduct our lives in such a manner that our children will not say to us one day, ‘If only our forefathers had done the necessary research we would have known by this time where we stood’.” Even if the research leads us to decide that this is not an acceptable method of replenishing our water supplies, it is still valuable, because then at least in 30, 40 or 50 years’ time we shall know that we need not look to a certain resource. Then we shall be able to say that that is not acceptable or possible. Perhaps we can then turn to other methods.

I shall soon— the date still has to be set—meet the Nelspruit community. I shall talk to everybody who has complaints about the research we are conducting there. I shall take all the technicians and scientists with me. We can make it a day-long discussion aimed at reassuring the people who have complaints about the research we are doing there. I think other hon members’ questions have been answered by the hon the Deputy Minister.

†I would like to refer to the hon member for Bryanston. He complained about the Balfour situation. Allow me to be frank; I am very glad that the hon member for Bethal repudiated the idea of White water, Black water or whatever. I am really glad that the hon member said that, because in South Africa there is no such thing as my water, your water or their water. I am in full agreement with the hon member for Bryanston that there should be an equal division of our water resources. I have already had negotiations with Lebowa, Gazankulu and KaNgwane.

*I tried to explain to them that the water in Lebowa does not belong to Lebowa only. The water in Lebowa should also go to the surrounding areas. The water in Swaziland does not belong to Swaziland only. It belongs to all of us. We must work together in order to ensure that it is distributed fairly.

†For that reason we have decided on one integrated water system for the whole of South Africa. That is the ultimate aim of this department—one integrated water system for the whole of the South Africa. We cannot conduct it in any other way. We follow the Helsinki rules of water division. These are the international rules which we follow. I have explained to the governments of Lebowa, Gazankulu and KaNgwane on several occasions that water knows no boundaries.

*I know that the CP cherishes ideas about partition. The one thing that they cannot control by means of a border, is water. Water does not heed the boundaries of countries; it runs where the dear Lord has decided to make it run. Our only obligation is to distribute it fairly among all of us.

†I fully agree with the hon member for Bryanston as far as that is concerned. He was worried about the quality of water in farm dams. We still have to do a lot of research on aquaculture. It is a very risky undertaking because freshwater fish are very sensitive to changes in the purity of water. I agree that a lot of research is required in that field.

With regard to Nylsvlei the department has paid considerable attention to the water requirements of the environment concerning aspects such as rivers, estuaries and wetlands. In this regard the department is supported by researchers from the CSIR and universities, and the preliminary study of the Nylsvlei has shown that the proposed dam—I do not know whether the hon member will accept this, but that was the result of the research—will not adversely affect the water balance of the vlei. However, further detailed studies are being proceeded with. I can assure the hon member that an environmental study is done in the case of every new project under consideration.

*The hon Whip is indicating to me that I must conclude my speech because he is running into trouble with his time schedule. I think I have replied to most of the questions asked by hon members. If I have offended anybody of left anybody out, I want to apologise and I promise that a written reply will be supplied. It has been a pleasure listening to the various speeches and I thank hon members for that.