Mr. Speaker, I move, as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

When I moved the adjournment of the debate on this Bill yesterday afternoon I did so with the intention of giving the hon. the Deputy Minister of Justice the opportunity to reply to the debate to-day. He is more conversant with the particular provision about which certain questions were put. Unfortunately I came up against the rules of procedure of the House and the Deputy Minister unfortunately cannot reply now. However, I want to give the hon. member for Transkei the assurance that the Deputy Minister will give careful consideration to the point raised by the hon. member, and will move an amendment in the Other Place should it appear necessary to do so.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The estimates of additional expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Funds for the year ending 31st March, 1969, provide for a further appropriation of R12,457,000. As is customary, I shall not comment at this stage on the revenue prospects; the earnings for the current year will be dealt with in my Budget speech on 5th March. I shall comment briefly on the main items appearing in the printed estimates of additional expenditure.

Under the main head, Railways, the additional amount of R1,376,380 required under Head No. 3—Maintenance of Rolling Stock—is mainly in respect of the replacement—for reasons of safety—of cast steel beams by fabricated beams in certain trucks, and increased costs of manufactured parts and material. Under Head No. 4—Running Expenses—an additional amount of R4,162,000 has to be voted mainly for increased Sunday and overtime payments, higher charges for and increased consumption of coal, greater expenditure on electric current and water, and the conveyance of power station coal by sea. An amount of R5,721,000 is to be appropriated under Traffic Expenses—Head No. 5—to cover higher Sunday and overtime payments on account of vacancies and increased traffic.

Of the additional amount of R727,200 required under Head No. 17—Miscellaneous Expenditure, Net Revenue Account, Railways—R94,500 has to be credited to the Treasury as a result of excess recoveries during the period 1965 to 1968 in respect of the losses on resettlement lines, whilst R71,000 is in respect of grants-in-aid to the local authorities at Waterval Boven, Alicedale and Cookhouse. R51,300 is in respect of ex gratia payments to various firms whose contracts for the supply of beef for Bantu rations were cancelled.

In terms of the provisions of section 2 (1) of Act 20 of 1922, an amount of R532,412, representing the accumulated loss on the working of the railways and harbour of South-West Africa during the period 1st August, 1915, to 31st March, 1922, inclusive, was charged to Capital Account. As this debit to Capital Account does not represent any tangible asset, the loss in question is being written off to Miscellaneous Expenditure—Net Revenue Account, so that the amount may be withdrawn from the Administration’s books. An amount of R508,000 will consequently require to be voted under Railways, and R24,400 under Harbours.

Under Head No. 30—Net Revenue Account, Airways—R25,000 requires to be voted for S.A. Airways’ contribution towards the amount payable by B.O.A.C. to Air Malawi in terms of a pool agreement. The original agreement concluded between B.O.A.C. and Central African Airways in 1957 provided for compensation to be paid to C.A.A. in respect of traffic carried to and from Central African Territories, and S.A. Airways shared these payments with B.O.A.C. This agreement, which terminated on 31st August, 1967, included Malawi traffic. New agreements between S.A. Airways and Air Rhodesia and between B.O.A.C. and Air Malawi became effective on 1st September, 1967, and compensation payments for traffic to and from the territories concerned are being shared by S.A. Airways and B.O.A.C. on a 50/50 basis. The amount payable to Air Malawi will reduce pro tanto the amount provided in the original estimates for payment to Air Rhodesia.

The contribution of R419,000 to the Sinking Fund provided for under Head No. 38—Net Revenue Appropriation Account—comprises R137,000 derived from the repayment of a public U.S.A. loan, and R282,000 from payment by the Department of Water Affairs in respect of the capitalized cost of operating and maintaining the longer section of track resulting from the deviation of the railway line at the Pongolapoort Dam.

The total expenditure to be provided for in respect of Capital and Betterment Works amounts to R16,153,110. It will, however, not be necessary to obtain additional loan funds from Treasury as sufficient savings are expected under the existing appropriations.

Under Head No. 1—Construction of Railways—R950,000 is required for a control centre for the operation of centralized traffic control on the new line between Metsi and Kaapmuiden as well as the existing line between Metsi and Acornhoek. The control centre was not provided for when the signalling portion of the new line was finalized as the remodelling and facilities required at Kaapmuiden had at that stage not yet been finalized.

The additional appropriation under Head No. 2—New Works on Open Lines—amounts to R4.6 million. Of this amount R310,500 is required for works initially authorized under the Unforeseen Works Allotment as a matter of urgency and now provided for in the Estimates as individual items.

A cash provision of R120,000 is required for the erection of a hangar and engine overhaul shop for the Boeing 747 aircraft, the first of which is to be delivered in October, 1971. The programme for the completion of the work, estimated to cost over R7 million, covers a period of 32 months and a start has already been made with the preliminary work.

As the handling of cargo at open berths during inclement weather and congestion owing to lack of adequate shed accommodation, cause delays to shipping and impede delivery of cargo, a new shed is being provided at “J” berth, Table Bay Harbour; cash provision of R144,000 is required for this purpose.

Provision in the amount of R204,000 has also to be made for the installation of colourlight signalling on the sections Gunhill—Bosrand and Glen—Karee.

In view of the pressing need for housing, especially for staff to be employed on the new pipeline and at the new diesel depots at Swartkops and Noupoort, an additional amount of R1,995,500 is required. As more land will also be needed for this purpose, it is necessary to provide for an additional cash provision of R85,000.

The balance under this Head is required mainly for individual items of delayed charges which have to be authorized in terms of a resolution of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours. To expedite the preparation of specifications and the calling of tenders for level crossing elimination schemes, the allotment for the elimination of level crossings is being increased by an amount of R1,500,000; additional cash provision is, however, not required.

An additional amount of R335,000 is required under Head No. 4—Road Transport Service. In view of the increased demand for the conveyance of non-White passengers by road, it was decided to convert 42 Brill buses into third-class passenger vehicles, at an estimated cost of R84,000. Accelerated deliveries of vehicles and trailers have resulted in the existing provision being insufficient to meet expenditure and an additional amount of R250,000 is consequently required for this purpose.

The provision of adequate fire-fighting equipment and facilities for the storage of foam stocks at Island View requires a cash provision of approximately R26,000 under Head No. 5—Harbours.

Following upon the loss of the Boeing 707 aircraft at Windhoek during April, 1968, it was found necessary to review the development programme and aircraft position of S.A. Airways. As it is essential for S.A. Airways to maintain its capacity, arrangements were made for the take-over of a Boeing 707 aircraft from Trek Airways and a cash provision of R2,251,000 is required under Head No. 6—Airways—for this purpose. An additional Boeing 707 aircraft which was ordered as a matter of urgency, requires a further R1,325,600 to be appropriated in respect of the current financial year. The installation of a dual doppler-navigation system in aircraft flying over the Indian Ocean sector by daylight to Australia, has become mandatory and R166,300 is being appropriated specifically for this purpose. In view of increased stores stock requirements as a result of the expansion of the Administration’s activities and more especially the additional expenditure arising from higher prices of spares and component parts for new types of aircraft and, electric and diesel locomotives, and the increase in production costs of items manufactured depart mentally, it is necessary to provide an additional R4 million under Head No. 8—Working Capital.

Summarized, the position is that appropriations from Revenue Fund require to be increased by R12,457,000 and those on Capital and Betterment Works by R16,153,110.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. the Minister has been helpful—and we appreciate it—in giving us this statement at the beginning of the discussion on the Additional Estimates. I believe that it will save time when we come to the Committee Stage, which is perhaps the more appropriate stage of the proceedings to delve into some of these matters. But there is one question which covers more than one head in the Additional Estimates and in the Schedule to the Bill that I would like to ask the Minister about immediately. He referred to the fact that under Heads 4 and 5 there are considerable increases in over-time payments, to a large extent to members of the running staff, checkers and shunters. The Minister should give us more information about this, because he will recall from previous discussions that we have had over the last two or three years that all of us shared concern at the shortage of staff on the S.A. Railways and Harbours. It is clear from what the Minister has said that this considerable increase in expenditure is due to what he calls an increase in traffic and staff shortages. Could the Minister give us some indication to what extent the staff shortage contributes to these higher overtime payments and to what extent it is due to an increase in traffic. These amounts are considerable. Under Head 4 there is an amount of R2,100,000, in round figures, for this purpose and under Head 5 R5,200,000. That is a very large sum. We want to be reassured that unconscionable demands are not being made upon members of the Railway organization in running our trains. We want to be reassured that standards of safety are not being lowered because of this shortage of staff which causes people to work such excessive overtime. We read in the Press and we ourselves have drawn the hon. the Minister’s attention to it in the past, that extremely dangerous practices like fly-shunting are being practiced in many marshalling yards because of the staff shortages. People cannot do the work required of them because they cannot cope with the excessive overtime that is necessary. We want to be assured that these practices are not unavoidable because the Railways cannot find the staff to do the work required to maintain our transport system.

There are a great many other items we should like to raise with the Minister but, as I said, we prefer to do that in the Committee Stage. But I think right now I should raise another matter and that is the increase of R11,000 for Bantu housing in the Cape Town docks.

In the Langa location.

What item does that fall under?

Item 71.

Thanks to the help of the hon. member for Salt River, Sir, I could find it very quickly. We of course are very interested in this increase.

Did not the Minister know the item was there?

No, he seemed to be quite surprised. But the Minister has never been concerned with the policy of the Nationalist Party. Has the Minister found it? [Interjections.] I find there is an interesting interjection there.

Order! The hon. member should not take any notice of it. He should confine his remarks to the reasons for the increase under this item.

The Deputy Minister was unwise to interfere in this debate. [Interjections.] Sir, there is an increased amount here of R11,000 for housing in Langa location for Bantu employees of the S.A. Railways and Harbours in the Western Cape. Why? I want to know what the reason is for that increase. Why should it be increased when it conflicts with the policy of the Nationalist Party? I think the Minister should explain to us why it is necessary to do this in Cape Town where the Bantu population has to be decreased, according to the policy of the Government, whereas in Durban it has been stopped. In Durban plans to house Bantu workers of the Railways have been stopped.

Order! The hon. member is going too far now.

Well, Sir, I have put my question and I am sure you will on a future occasion join me in the interesting inquiries that we make to the Minister in regard to this complete contradiction in policy and changing attitude from the one province to the other.

Order!

For that reason I want the Minister to give us the reason for the increase under this item in Cape Town, when it is decreased in Durban. I think that is a fair question.

I rise to support the hon. member for Yeoville and to reiterate his statement that he believes that the hon. the Minister should give us the full details in regard to fly-shunting. I should also like to support my hon. colleague in regard to overtime and point out to the hon. the Minister that despite the fact that the Railways today employs 7,000 people less than it did two years ago, its overtime payments are up by over R4 million. I believe that we are entitled to some explanation in this regard and I echo the thought expressed that this must cause us some alarm, because last year we were told that people in the dock areas were working an average of 80 hours overtime in Durban and 96 hours overtime in Cape Town Harbour. If these large over-time payments are being paid to fewer employees I believe this side of the House is entitled to an assurance by the hon. the Minister that he is perfectly satisfied the health of the employees is not being jeopardized by the overtime they are compelled to work.

Another point I wish to raise with the Minister along the same lines is the fact that he now employs 200 less plate-layers, but 600 odd more miles were laid during the past two years, and it is obvious these plate-layers are having to work a great deal harder or a good deal longer than they did in the past. We are concerned about the safety of people on the Railways because of the amount of work being done by the employees. Those are the points I should like the Minister to reply upon.

Mr. Speaker, the increases in overtime and Sunday-time payments are as a result of the shortage of staff. We have had a shortage of staff for many years and in some grades the shortage is acute. As a matter of fact, in some of the grades there is a shortage of about 20 per cent, and in shunting grades the shortage is even higher. There seems to be no possibility of alleviating that shortage. Apparently there is a general shortage of manpower in South Africa, i.e. white manpower, I am not speaking about Bantu. This shortage is not confined to the skilled and professional grades only but it is also experienced in the bread and butter grades, and we have to live with that shortage. The result is the Railways are not only mechanizing more but as far as possible we are introducing electronics and automation, but over and above that the men have to work more Sunday-time and overtime. I can assure hon. members, however, that the standards of safety are not being jeopardized and neither is the health of the men being jeopardized. Hon. members can rest assured the trade unions on the Railways are very effective watch-dogs. They look after their members, including the health of their members, and they will be the first to make representations to me if the health of their members is jeopardized. I admit many of the men work exceptionally long hours; that does happen, but where possible it is avoided. As I said, the standard of safety is not being jeopardized at all.

The hon. member said fly-shunting is a dangerous practice. But that is not so. Fly-shunting has been done since the Railways have been in existence. Fly-shunting means a truck is kicked off on to a line by a locomotive and brakemen are there to brake the truck so that a collision does not take place. That is a general practice. Apparently the hon. member was referring to a newspaper report which alleged that fly-shunting was being done with trucks containing dangerous commodities, for instance dynamite, and also trucks containing livestock. Well, that is against the regulations.

Petrol was specifically mentioned.

Yes, and petrol. As I say, that is against the regulations, and according to the report the System Manager in Durban is investigating the report to see whether it contains any truth or not. I repeat: That is against the regulations.

Hon. members also spoke of the Langa accommodation. All we are dealing with here is an increase in the amount originally allocated, which was R296,000. Now a further R11,000 is required. This matter was debated last session, and we are not concerned with the principle now, we are only concerned with the increase. The increase is because the cost of the housing is higher than was estimated. The cost of the housing was in connection with housing 1,000 Bantu.

Aren’t you reducing the number of Bantu workers by 5 per cent per year?

I am reducing the number of Bantu workers on the Railways, and the hon. member will be quite surprised when he sees the figures concerning the number of Bantu employed at present compared with the number of Bantu employed five years ago. In Cape Town no other labour is available and that is why 1,000 Bantu were imported to do the work which Coloureds are not prepared to do and which white men, of course, will not be called upon to do. It is not in the least in conflict with Government policy.

Order! The hon. the Minister must confine himself to the reasons for the increase.

The reason for the increase is the cost of the housing was higher than estimated and I require another R11,000.

I thought we have curbed inflation?

Mr. Speaker, we have curbed inflation, but we have not completely eliminated inflation. We never claimed to have eliminated inflation altogether.

The hon. member for Port Natal wanted to know how it is that we have less platelayers in employment now that we are laying more lines. The fact of the matter is that maintenance of railway lines has been mechanized. We are using the Matisa Tamping machines instead of manual labour. Consequently, we require less platelayers and less staff on the whole as a result of mechanization. That is the reason why there are less platelayers while we are laying more lines. The maintenance of lines is as efficient and as good as it used to be when it was done by manual labour.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule 1:

Revenue Services: Head No. 4,—Running Expenses, Railways, R4,162,000:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister in connection with Head No. 4, what is the position in regard to people who refuse to work overtime? Are they penalized?

Order! The hon. member may only ask what the reason for the increase is.

The hon. the Minister has told us that the overtime payment forms part of the increase. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the employees are charged if they refused to work overtime.

They have the right to ask for relief after working 12 hours. By general arrangement, we come to an agreement that they sometimes do not ask relief after 12 hours. It is usually expected of members of the staff to at least work a certain amount of overtime. It does happen that if they are just awkward and will not work overtime, then they are charged under the disciplinary regulations.

Mr. Chairman, resulting from the hon. the Minister’s statement, I would like to ask him whether he is aware that in numerous cases, persons who have worked up to 14 and 16 hours, and who have then demanded their relief, have in fact been penalized by being laid off for two or three days. I have come across innumerable complaints that this is in fact happening.

Order! What has this to do with the increase?

It has to do with the hon. the Minister’s reply to the question.

It has nothing to do with the increase.

Mr. Chairman, I submit, with respect, that this has a great deal to do with the increase.

The hon. member may not discuss the whole principle of overtime now. That is not at issue.

We are being asked to vote R1.7 million in respect of drivers and firemen alone. My point is that we are being asked to vote money; we have asked the Minister why, and he has said that it is for overtime Surely, we are being asked to vote this money to spend on overtime payment for drivers and firemen. Are we not then permitted to debate whether this is a good thing.

That should have been debated last year when the original estimate was voted.

We are being asked to vote an additional amount. With respect, Mr. Chairman, when we debated the original Estimates, we on this side of the House queried the item “overtime”; we queried the fact that some 40 per cent of the Railway wage bill was wanted for overtime. I submit that where we are being asked to increase an amount to which we objected in the Main Estimates, we should be entitled to say why we do not like voting an additional amount which is going to impose an additional burden on people who are already over-burdened. I was making the point that of this R1.7 million part is being asked for in order to pay people to do more than they are physically capable of doing.

Order! I have given my ruling. I have here a Speaker’s ruling of 1960, where he ruled during a similar debate that “discussion should not reopen the question of policy involved in the original grant”. This is what the hon. member is doing now.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to debate policy …

Order! The policy is to have overtime.

I accept that. What I am debating is whether this money we are being asked for now is excessive or not. I submit that it is excessive and that we are being asked to vote money here which was not asked for in the original Estimates and which is over and above what has been accepted in principle. We accepted in the original Estimates the principle that 40 per cent of the whole Budget would be for overtime. We are now being asked to vote another sum of nearly R1¾ million. This is not the same principle, but an additional amount. It is an extra amount and I submit that we are entitled to explain why this is bad for the Railways and why it is bad for the country.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to asking for the reasons for the increase, and nothing else.

And having got the reasons, may we not …

Then hon. members must either vote for it or against it.

May we not query the reasons given, Mr. Chairman?

Yes, if the reasons given are considered to be wrong.

I did so, Mr. Chairman. The hon. the Minister said that this money is voted for overtime, and that it would not affect the health or safety of people. I submit that it does, and therefore I am querying the hon. the Minister’s statement which he gave as an answer to the question why this money was wanted. He said it was wanted for overtime, but that it was not going to do any harm. We submit that it does do harm to the railwaymen and that it endangers the safety of the Railways. The hon. the Minister dealt with fly shunting, for instance. Am I not entitled to deal with the danger arising from fly shunting?

Not at this stage. The hon. member can do that when the Main Estimates are before the Committee.

I then content myself by saying that I repeat that the health and happiness of railwaymen is being endangered by this money which we are being asked to vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have no argument with the hon. member in regard to this. Excessive overtime does endanger the health of any person who works it. I do not know whether the hon. member has any experience of working overtime …

Yes, I have worked overtime.

I shoveled coal for periods of 16 to 18 hours in locomotives and I do not know whether the hon. member has done that. I know what overtime is. I know what Sunday time is, and have had practical experience of that. I therefore know that excessive overtime does eventually endanger the health of anybody who has to work it continuously. We are, however, trying to avoid the working of excessive overtime.

You are not trying to avoid it.

Of course, we are trying to avoid it, but you cannot avoid it when you have an extreme shortage of staff. There is one thing I want to tell the hon. member. He says that the United Party is against overtime in principle.

No, excessive overtime.

Yes, that is common cause. We are all against excessive overtime.

[Inaudible.]

Of course there is excessive overtime in certain cases.

Then you agree with us?

Yes, I do. I have been trying to say that for the last ten minutes. I agree that in some cases there is excessive overtime, but it is not the general practice. It all depends upon what your norm in regard to excessive overtime is. Is it 12 hours, 10 hours or 15 hours?

Surely it depends on the nature of the work?

Yes, but what is excessive overtime for a driver? Has the hon. member had experience of the duties of a driver? How does he know that? [Interjections.] I say that overtime is being worked. Long hours are worked very often. As a matter of fact in certain cases drivers work up to 20 hours, which is quite wrong. It should be avoided, if possible. But the fact remains that after 12 hours they are entitled to ask for relief, and if no relief is available they can remain there until such time as relief does come. That is the general rule and they have not been victimized because they asked for relief. If the hon. member knows of any specific cases he can bring them to my attention. I can then have those cases investigated. It is no use talking in general terms. If the hon. member can produce specific cases where drivers or running staff have been victimized because they asked for relief after working 12 hours, I shall investigate them immediately.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 5,—Traffic expenses—Railways, R5,721,000:

Mr. Chairman, under item 319—Shunters, there was an increase of R1,370,000. Is this increase due to higher payments to existing shunters, because of more overtime, or because the Minister has been able to recruit additional shunters?

The increase represents the payment of additional overtime, as a result mainly of increased traffic and the shortage of staff.

Is it not as a result of increased rates?

No, it is because of additional overtime. The overtime rates were increased last year.

Is that the reason for this increase?

No. This increase is because of additional overtime as a result of shortages of staff and additional work which the men have to do. That is why an additional amount has been provided for. There is a turnover of as much as about 100 per cent in the shunting grades. We manage to employ men; they work for two or three months; some of them abscond, and some resign. There is a continual and high turnover.

What is the reason for that? Surely there must be a reason?

They do not like the job. I do not think that anybody likes that job. I think it is the most arduous and dangerous work in the Railways. I do not blame anybody for thinking twice before he becomes a shunter.

Then why do you force white people to do that work?

Order! That is not at issue now.

I am prepared to debate this question with the hon. member. I hope that he will raise this matter of using white people for certain jobs on the Railways during my Budget debate. We can debate the matter then.

I am just asking a question.

Yes, but we can debate the matter then. We cannot debate it now.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to labour this question which the hon. member for Durban (Point) raised, but I should like to put one thought to the hon. the Minister. With this excessive overtime, I am not so concerned …

It is not excessive overtime. These are additional overtime payments.

When one looks at the amount involved for overtime, as against the previous payments, it would seem that this is excessive overtime. The hon. the Minister has already said that these people are working harder and are working longer hours because of increased traffic. He has not increased the number of shunters. He has that problem. Therefore these same people are having to work that much longer. I can appreciate the hon. the Minister’s problem, but I have had personal experience of constituents of mine …

Order!

I am dealing with the question of overtime.

The hon. member may only ask for the reasons for the overtime. He may not give reasons or try to suggest reasons.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 30,—Miscellaneous Expenditure—Airways, R26,890:

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister to give us, if he can, a little more information than he did in his opening remarks in regard to the new Malawi route? He referred to it and gave us some information. Could he expand upon that and tell us what the prospects are? This is a new item. Could he tell us what the arrangements with Malawi are as far as aircraft are concerned, and generally give the country a fuller picture of this new expansion of our Airways?

Mr. Chairman, this has nothing to do with the new service we have introduced to Malawi. This is a payment as a result of an agreement between B.O.A.C., Air Rhodesia and South African Airways. The receipts are divided between those three. We convey their overseas and international passengers. Therefore we have to pay them a certain amount. Now we have introduced a new service between South Africa and Malawi. It is a reciprocal service. It is a Dakota service once a week from South Africa and once a week from Malawi, but it is doing quite well so far. We are also entering into a pool arrangement with Air Malawi in regard to this particular service.

Will this pool arrangement to which the hon. the Minister refers be in regard to this Dakota service?

Yes.

This, I accept, is a question of international transport, but it is affected by the Malawi agreement, because previously our only link was passing traffic. Now we will have the direct traffic. There is a large number of people who come from Malawi to work in our mines, and so on.

That revenue is not shared by B.O.A.C.

Is it hoped that South African Airways will take over much of that traffic, which is at present often undertaken by private lines?

What happens now is that passengers from Malawi can go overseas by international airlines from Blantyre via Nairobi. We have no international service through Malawi. We have international services through Rhodesia. When Malawi passengers come to Jan Smuts Airport, they may travel by South African Airways. In such a case, of course, it is included in the pool agreement, when we transport Malawi passengers overseas on our international air services. This pool arrangement is very involved. It is worked out to the finest detail, so that both airlines receive the correct share of the revenue derived from that traffic.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 38,—Contribution to Sinking Fund—Reserve Account, R419,113:

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister give us further particulars regarding this contribution to Reserve Account? What is the purpose of this contribution?

R136,932.88 is in respect of a credit arising from the repayment of a per cent public U.S.A. loan in 1968, and the credit resulting from the acquisition of stocks below par for Sinking Fund purposes and fluctuations in the exchange rates during the period 1958 to 1968. R282,180 is in respect of a payment made by the Department of Water Affairs in regard to the capitalized cost of operating and maintaining an additional 2.6 miles of track as a result of the deviation of the Candover-Golela line to permit of the construction of the Pongolapoort Dam. The hon. member knows that when we have to deviate a line, the Department of Water Affairs have to pay for that deviation. We have placed that amount to the credit of the Reserve Account.

Head put and agreed to.

Schedule 1 accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 2:

Capital and Betterment Services: Head No. 2,—New Works on Open Lines: (a) Loan Funds, Betterment Fund, Capital Credits and Recoveries, R4,602,900:

Can the hon. the Minister give us some information in connection with item 42, “Elimination of Level Crossings”. What is the reason for the additional amount voted over and above the already increased amount which was voted this year? Could he please give us some information on the progress made and on the expenditure which was required for that item.

I would like to refer the hon. the Minister to item NO. 59, “Durban: Alterations and Additions to Reservation Office”. In view of the fact that a new station is on the drawing board, is it necessary to spend this amount of money on alterations or additions to the existing station, which in any case is in the process of being replaced?

It will fall down if they do not. The chewing gum has got dry.

In regard to item 53, “Table Bay Harbour: Cargo Shed at J berth”, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the foundations for the shed are able to take a second floor, or is it just a single floor shed?

We do not build double-decker sheds.

In the Cape Town Docks you have quite a number.

I know, but they are old and out-dated.

One has just been re-built.

I know; we have no other one.

Then I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell us something about the wire that he bought under items 91 and 92 for the South-West Africa system. What is the story behind the purchase of post office copper wires? Then reverting to item 53, I want to ask the Minister whether it is the policy now not to build double-decker sheds in the harbours.

Yes, that is correct.

With reference to item 42 and the additional amount of R1,500,000 which is required, I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell us how that amount is to be spent and what particular items comprise that amount. Then under item 71, an increased amount of R11,000 is required for additional accommodation for non-Whites at Langa. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell us what non-Whites there are. Are they Bantu or what are they?

Order! That is not the point at issue at this stage. The hon. member may only ask for reasons for the increase; he may not suggest any reasons.

I am asking what category of non-Whites they are.

The hon. member should have asked that last year.

May I ask then where they come from?

No, the hon. member should have asked that last year too.

May I ask how long they will be here?

That is not in issue at this stage. The hon. member may only ask for reasons for the increase and nothing more.

The reply to the question put to me by the hon. member for Durban (Point) is this: The funds are required to provide for the withdrawal of moneys from the Level Crossing Elimination Fund to meet that portion of the cost of elimination projects, approved by the committee, which is to be financed from the Fund. The additional amount is to facilitate compilation of specifications in order that tenders may be called for and awarded early, thereby ensuring that expenditure is incurred in the year appropriated; no additional cash provision is required.

Will the hon. the Minister explain that?

Whe whole item is a book entry, and it will assist in the compilation of specifications and in awarding tenders earlier. If the hon. member wants to know about particular items, he can see that from the report of the standing committee on the elimination of level crossings. They give the list of priorities; they give the list of crossings which have been eliminated and a list of crossings which are in the process of being eliminated.

The hon. member for Port Natal wants to know something about item 59. The existing facility there, is inadequate. The shortage of bricklaying staff prevented completion by March, 1968; in other words, it should have been completed by March, 1968. But this has nothing to do with the new station which will be built some time in the future. This has to serve its purpose in the meantime until such time as the new station has been built.

What is holding the old one together?

Bricks and mortar. The hon. member for Salt River wanted some information with regard to item 53: The handling of cargo at open berths during inclement weather and congestion due to inadequate shed accommodation caused delays to shipping and impeded delivery of cargoes. Facilities are required for the introduction of in-shed methods of checking cargo. Owing to urgency the State President’s special warrant was obtained to start the work. Then I come to items 91 and 92: This is a scheme by which selector lines are cleared from carrier circuits between Karasburg and Nakop. I hope the hon. member understands what that means.

I understand a little bit about it.

Funds are also required for “Proposed provision of 12 channel carrier system between De Aar and Windhoek: Carrier equipment taken off selector lines between Otavi and Tsumeb”. I hope that is quite clear. I have already replied to the question in connection with item 42. With regard to item 71, “Langa: Additional accommodation for non-Whites”, I might say that no Coloureds live in Langa; only Bantu live there.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 4,—Road Transport Service, R335,000:

With regard to item 111 where an amount of R84,000 is to be voted for converting Brill vehicles, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell us whether these are the old petrol-driven buses that he hopes to convert. They must have done a considerable mileage by now.

Don’t you make any suggestions!

These Brill buses were specially ordered and built for the particular purpose for which they were required, namely, to convey passengers. You do not get so many European passengers any more but the numbers of third-class passengers are increasing. These buses are still in a very good condition and they have been converted for third-class passengers.

Are these the ones that were sabotaged when they came here?

Not that I know of.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 5,—Harbours, R125,500:

With regard to item 115, “Table Bay Harbour: Harbour Scheme (Preliminary work)” I would like to ask the Minister, in view of the fact that we are being asked to vote this money, whether it is possible to see a plan of this new harbour. We have never seen the plan of this new harbour.

Order! This is not a new item.

The Minister is asking for a preliminary amount of R11,500.

If the hon. member calls at my office I shall show him the plan.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 6,—Airways, R6,009,800:

Sir, when the original vote was debated we on this side of the House raised the question as to whether the Airways was planning far enough ahead in its purchase of aircraft, and I think these estimates justify that criticism. We now have in front of us two new items, the first being a replacement for an aircraft which was tragically lost and the second one being an additional aircraft to be purchased. First of all, I want to raise the question as to how it is that aircraft for which orders have been placed at a fixed price, should now suddenly have to cost more. Surely when an aircraft is purchased there is a fixed price determined and an order is placed at a price. Then we find that Items 122 and 123, for identical aircraft, 707-344.C’s, have a difference of R410,000 between them. There is nearly R½ million difference on a R6 million aircraft. Could the Minister explain that discrepancy in price, and also why the two Boeing 707-320’s are now going to cost more than was anticipated. We also have further items where additional expenditure is involved, and it would therefore perhaps be an opportunity for the Minister to tell us, since he is placing new orders now, what his ideas are in regard to building up the strength of our Airways fleet to meet the traffic which is offering.

We are of course entirely at the mercy of the manufacturers and many of these contracts, as the hon. member will know, have an escalating clause. In other words, if labour costs, etc., rise then the price is increased. It also depends on the time when the order is actually placed. Like everything else, these aircraft are continually increasing in price. One order is placed at a particular price to-day, but if you place a similar order for the same aircraft in six months’ time the price is higher. In regard to that we have no say at all and we have to pay what they ask.

In regard to the future of S.A. Airways, to meet internal and external demands, we have quite a number of aircraft on order for our domestic services. An additional three 737 aircraft are on order. That is the two-engined aircraft which are very satisfactory and more economical than the 727s. In addition to that, we have this Boeing on order and we also have the 747 on order for the international services. Directly the 747s are in operation, 707 aircraft will also be utilized on the domestic services and probably we will do away with the Viscounts except for one or two runs.

Are the 707s economical?

Yes, but they will require a longer runway at D. F. Malan and at Durban, and the Department of Transport has been instructed to increase the length of these two runways, so that they can take off with a full load. In other words, as far as I can see at the moment S.A. Airways will have sufficient aircraft within three years for both the internal and the external services. But air traffic is increasing to such a fantastic extent that one cannot say what is going to happen. It might be necessary within a very short time to order additional aircraft again.

Should you not order them now?

Well, you do not want a surplus capacity. You first have to see what the traffic potential is, what the probable increase of traffic is, before you order more aircraft, because very big sums of money are involved. But we have quite a number of aircraft on order now which will be sufficient to meet our needs for the next five or six years.

The Minister referred to the fact that the 707s would subsequently be used on the internal services and he indicated the necessity for lengthening the runways at Cape Town and Durban Airports. Do I take it from that that the 707s will not be used at East London and Port Elizabeth?

No, they will not be used there.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 7.—Pipelines, R29,000:

This seems to be a new item. Could the Minister explain to us the purpose of the two-way radio systems? Is it a safety device?

It is to assist in eliminating the loss by leakage from pipelines. In other words, the head office can be immediately contacted so that the maintenance teams can be set out whenever there is a leakage. In addition, it helps to ensure maximum security. In other words, the whole pipeline will be covered by two-way radio, so that if anything happens head office can be contacted immediately by radio.

Head put and agreed to.

Schedule 2 accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

As a result of the fact that the amendment contained in clause 58 has a close bearing on Kokstad, which forms part of my constituency, I am quite interested in it. Last night the hon. member for Transkei made a statement in the last paragraph of his speech which I want to quote to him—

However, the parties concerned and the general public in the area did not approach me. Who gave the hon. member for Transkei the right to make a statement such as this and to say that the general public is opposed to this amendment?

They have more confidence in us than they have in you.

No, the hon. member for King William’s Town is sitting over there too, and he knows just as well as I do that this is the truth and that the people in the Mount Currie district as a whole are not opposed to the application of the Liquor Act in that district. These are illusions which he creates for himself, but there is nothing of the kind. Let us take, for example, the arguments advanced by the hon. member, namely the throughroads from Umzimkulu to Kokstad. If one leaves Umzimkulu for Ixopo, one is also on the borders of the Transkei. If one leaves the Transkei from the south, Komgha is situated on the opposite bank of the Great Kei. What is the difference? Why cannot one leave the Transkei and enter Kokstad? After all, it makes no difference. This cannot be advanced as a reason why this amendment should not be introduced to apply to Kokstad and its district. However, there is much more behind this matter than the hon. member gives us to understand. It is a matter of politics. If we take this matter further and consider the United Party’s, Radio F.M., namely the hon. member for Durban (Point), when he goes off the air and leaves this Chamber and comes in that part of the country, he simply vanishes and people begin to speak and whisper. The hon. member will, for example, ask whether we know why the Liquor Act has not been applied in Mount Currie. The reason for this is that Mount Currie is, eventually going to be taken over by Matanzima! The hon. member for Durban (Point) has advanced this argument on several occasions in the past. This is why this sinister argument is being advanced here. Let me just give the hon. the Minister the assurance that the. Whites in Kokstad and Mount Currie would like to have this legislation. I would like to see this Act be applied even more extensively, so as to include the whole of the white area of Griqualand East. All of us would want to see this and it would also make for greater, confidence in that area. We want nothing to do with the Transkei because we do not belong to the Transkei; we belong to white South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, when I spoke yesterday and mentioned Kokstad and Mount Currie the hon. member who has just sat down frowned at me and then fumbled about with his Bill—apparently he did not realize that Kokstad was involved at all! He asked me how I dare to talk on behalf of Kokstad and where and when I was consulted by the Kokstad people? A portion of Mount Currie district still falls in my constituency. I represented the rest of that district for 15 or 18 years. They still have confidence in me and they still consult me instead of that hon. member. The hon. member made the statement “hulle wil dit graag hê”. I challenge him to get up and mention the name of one person in that district who wants this Bill. The hon. member got up and made a statement without any justification, “hulle wil dit graag hê”. Who did the hon. member consult about this? Does the hon. member realize that for provincial council purposes the rest of Mount Currie district still falls under the Transkei? Does he realize that I had a meeting there last year, as I do go around to my constituency every year. I held the meeting at Kokstad and all those people from Mount Currie …

How many people were there, Ten?

How many people came there? The hon. member has never seen so many people at a Nationalist Party meeting at Kokstad town hall as we had there that night. It is nonsense to say that they do not want the Transkei Proclamation because they do want it. The hon. member knows nothing about the liquor law. I ask the hon. member to get up and tell this Committee why this law should be applied to Kokstad? I want him to tell us of what advantage this law will be to the people of Mount Currie district. I have given him the disadvantages; let him now give me one advantage. He says, “hulle wil dit almal graag hê”, not only in Mount Currie but in Matatiele too, but do the people want it?

Yes.

Who told the hon. member that Matatiele wants it? The hon. member cannot just say that they want it. It is absolute nonsense. Those people were never consulted.

Who tells you they do not want it?

The people who have made representations, have made it to me. The hon. the Minister knows it and that is why he, in the Second Reading, said that the hon. member for Transkei will be interested in it. He knows that I have been interested in this because representations have been made to me and not to him the member for Aliwal North. I ask the hon. member to get up, just to show how much he knows about what this Bill contains, and tell the House of what advantage it will be to East Griqualand to have the Liquor Act applied to it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member made a statement in this House on behalf of his constituents. He has now been challenged to substantiate it, but he sits dumb, zipped, silent! The hon. member for Transkei has stated the facts. The hon. member for Aliwal has said that the people …

Which facts did he state?

The fact of objection and the disadvantages of the application of this proposal.

Prove it!

The hon. member for Aliwal contradicted him and said that the people want it. He has now been challenged to name one person, one single person who has asked for this, and he cannot name one! In other words, there is not such a person. He has misled the House when he said that the people want it, because he cannot name one person who wants it. I want to ask the hon. member what normal person, who but a crazy person, would want to have applied to him the stranglehold and red tape of throttling dictatorship, which is applied to the hotelier under this Bill. What person would voluntarily want to have applied to him the dictatorship of the present liquor legislation when he can have a decent, intelligent proclamation governing him? My appeal to the Minister is to scrap the whole Liquor Act and to adopt the Transkeian Proclamation for the whole of South Africa: an enlightened proclamation which has scope for twentieth century people to live in a twentieth century way. It is a proclamation which looks ahead to the things which the Minister is only now tentatively pointing a little finger at; things like women in bars, barmaids, the right to sell after hours, the right to sell to a traveller, etc. These are privileges which the Transkei appreciates.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

These are the privileges which are being taken from them, Mr. Chairman. I am naming all the privileges which this clause is taking away from the people affected in those districts. I am saying that nobody could ever possibly dream of wanting to swop this sort of advantage for the sort of control and stranglehold which they are going to get if this clause is passed. I support the hon. member for Transkei and with him I say again, that the hon. member for Aliwal should not get up in this House and make statements which he cannot prove.

Mr. Chairman, I readily concede that certain discussions did take place. I was very accommodating. As regards the question of the hon. member for Transkei, I called a meeting of the interested parties in Umtata and I asked the chairman of the National Liquor Board and another delegate of the Department to inform them about this matter. I readily concede that it is true that it will definitely be less advantageous for these people under the Liquor Act which is going to be applied in that area now than it was under the ordinary Transkei Proclamation. The Transkei Proclamation lays down fewer requirements. This is quite true. However, we are up against the fact that the Mount Currie district is situated in the Republic of South Africa and not in the Transkei. It is something unheard of for legislation of one territory to apply to another area which is situated within the territory of South Africa.

No, but this is a proclamation which was made by the South African Government!

There is a clear distinction. Mount Currie does not fall within the territory of the Transkei. The hon. member cannot argue against that fact. It is something unheard of for a certain law to be applicable to one certain area of South Africa while another law concerning the same matter is applicable to a different part of South Africa.

But where in this law is reference made to the Transkei? Is it not Griqualand East that is being referred to here?

The hon. member did not consult the Bill. The Transkei is excluded from the original Liquor Act. The Transkei is defined so as to include Griqualand East. The way the law is being altered now, Mount Currie is being included once again. This matter is somewhat complicated, but this is the position. Mount Currie is being excluded from the Transkei liquor proclamation and included under the Liquor Act of the Republic. Now, I am very reasonable as far as this is concerned. As I have said, an interview took place between my Department and the parties concerned and they all agreed that the Liquor Act would have to be made applicable to them sooner or later. The only difference is that they do not want the Act to be made applicable so soon, but only at a later stage.

The later the better.

Yes, the later the better. I will concede that. We are making provision that they will be entitled to the same privileges, that they will be able to be classified and that they will be able to obtain additional off-sales facilities …

But they have these at the moment.

Yes, but they may also obtain additional privileges as regards off-sales. When the hotel is classified, it can obtain additional rights as regards off-sales.

What is additional?

It means “additional”, what else? If they happen to have one already attached to it …

You mean they can have two bottle stores?

Yes, it can happen and it has happened. That is an additional privilege. They are given five years in which to classify the same as hotels in the Republic. From the discussions which were held, it was evident that there were altogether six hotels—three in Kokstad and three in the district—and that the bathroom facilities of at least three of them already complied with classification standards. One of them was the Mount Currie Hotel in Kokstad; the other one was the Franklin Hotel and the third one was the St. Bernard’s Peak Hotel. As far as their bathroom facilities are concerned, they comply to the requirements of the Liquor Act even at this stage. It is something unheard of, it is something to which an end should be made, namely that we have here a part of white South Africa to which the legislation of another territory is applicable. We now want to do away with this anomaly in this way.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has just ended his remarks by saying it is undesirable that a portion of white South Africa is governed by legislation applicable to the black Transkei. I would agree with the Minister if Mount Currie was excluded from the Transkei proper for all purposes. I would concede it is an anomaly that the Transkei liquor proclamation applies there whilst Mount Currie had nothing to do with the Transkei. But the Minister is not correct. As we pointed out to him before when his officials met a delegation, all the other laws applicable to the Transkei as an area, apply to Mount Currie. The Penal Code, which is based on the Indian Penal Code applied by the British Government when they first annexed the Transkei, is applied there to-day still. But it does not apply in the rest of the Republic. It applies to the whole of the Transkei, including Mount Currie. The criminal law applied in Mount Currie is based on the Transkei Penal Code which applies in the Transkei. Here is another example. The Mount Currie pound laws are those of the Transkei, not those of the rest of the Republic. The laws in regard to Asiatics and their entry into the Transkei which apply in the Transkei, apply in Mt. Currie too. The Transkei has its own laws, it has been governed by proclamations, and all those proclamations apply to Mount Currie too. This liquor proclamation is not an isolated proclamation applying to Mt. Currie, because all the other proclamations applicable to the Transkei also apply to Mt. Currie. We asked the Minister to leave this proclamation applicable there until all the other proclamations fall away, until Mt. Currie, in fact, is totally dissociated from the Transkei. That is what we asked the Minister to do, and I still ask him to do it. I ask him not to make an exception as far as the liquor proclamation is concerned. Why must just this one exception be made whilst the other proclamations still apply? We should wait. In due course, as Mt. Currie becomes totally dissociated from the Transkei, then we can apply our Liquor Act to Mt. Currie.

Mt. Currie is not in a unique position. As far as we understand from this Government, Mt. Currie is not going to be the only part of that area which will not fall under the Transkei Government. There are other parts which will not fall under the Transkei either—they are going to be excluded eventually.

Of course, as far as Chief Kaizer Matanzima and the Transkei Government are concerned, they have different ideas as to what is going to happen to Mt. Currie and the other parts which now fall under the Transkei, so they may never become completely excluded from the Transkei. Mt. Currie is in no different position from Umtata, or Butterworth, or Idutywa, or Mt. Frere, or any other of the bigger towns in the Transkei. It is in exactly the same position as those places and it is governed, like those towns, by the Government of the Republic. The Minister says the Mt. Currie district is part of the Republic. But let me remind him the whole of the Transkei is still part of the Republic, and it is no argument to say here Mt. Currie is “part of the Republic”.

The liquor proclamation is a proclamation by the Government of the Republic, not by the Government of the Transkei. The Government of the Republic administers that proclamation. It so happens that, instead of having a chief magistrate as chairman of the Liquor Licensing Board, they have the Secretary for Justice as their chairman. But they need not have had him: the Minister could have made anybody else the chairman. When the liquor proclamation is applied to Mt. Currie, as it is applied in the rest of the Transkei, it is applied by the Government of the Republic, so one cannot contend Mt. Currie is being governed by any foreign government.

I appeal once more to the Minister not to go ahead with this amendment but to drop it. There is heaps of time before this sort of legislation need be passed. There is no urgency. If there was an urgency, I could understand it. The Minister himself says he is going to wait for five years before he classifies the hotels. Why, then, is he in such a hurry to apply the rest of the Liquor Act? The Minister has not told us why he wants our Liquor Act instead of the Transkei liquor proclamation to apply there. Is it because he does not like the Sunday trading hours? I do not know. Is he opposed to their liquor Sunday trading hours? What does he object to in the Transkei liquor proclamation as applied at this moment in Mt. Currie?

I submit no case has been made out. We are against this change which is against the interests of the people in that area. They have not asked for it, and I submit the Minister himself has given us no reason why it should be changed.

Clause 58 put and the Committee divided:

AYES—100: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—33: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith. W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 60:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The main object of this Bill is to convert the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund, which is registered as a company under the Companies Act of 1926, into a statutory body, for reasons I shall explain later on. This opportunity is also being used for making other essential amendments to the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, 1942 (Act No. 29 of 1942). These amendments have become necessary as a result of previous amendments of the Act, the coming into operation of the uniform road traffic ordinances, and also representations which have been received from various bodies.

In clause 1 the following definitions are amended. The existing definition of "insurance period” has proved to be cumbersome and confusing, and is therefore being replaced by a clearer definition which makes the insurance year the same in respect of all vehicles, i.e. from 1st May in any year to 30th April in the following year, except for those vehicles that are used under cover of a temporary or special permit issued under the road traffic ordinances. The definition of “special permit” is being amended as follows: The ordinances referred to in the Act have been replaced by the uniform road traffic ordinances of 1966, and to avoid having to amend the Act from time to time when the ordinances are replaced, the words “in terms of any law relating to the licensing of motor vehicles” are now being inserted. A definition of “temporary permit” is also being added. Whereas in the past no provision existed in Act No. 29 of 1942 for the issue of third party insurance to vehicles used under cover of a temporary permit, which is issued by the provincial administrations by way of temporary licences, the necessary provision is now being made in the Act, and a premium for such insurance has already been determined, namely R3 for a period of 21 days. Clause 2 amends section 3 (1) by including in the proviso motor vehicles that are used under a temporary permit. The object of this amendment is to compel the owner of a vehicle that is being used under a “temporary permit” to submit the temporary permit when insurance for such vehicle is being applied for. At present the same procedure applies in respect of a vehicle which is used under cover of a special permit. In clause 3 a temporary permit is also inserted in section 6 (3). Section 6 (3) authorizes a registered company to refuse insurance if there are grounds to believe that the vehicle in question is not roadworthy. This power, however, does not apply in respect of a motor vehicle which is used under a special permit, and the proposed amendment also deprives the registered company of the power to refuse insurance in the case of a motor vehicle which is used under a temporary permit. At the moment section 15 (6) provides that a motor dealer commits an offence if he uses a vehicle which is registered under a motor dealer’s licence, i.e. by means of red number-plates, otherwise than in connection with his business as a motor dealer. The ordinances under which the red number-plates are issued, however, permit unrestricted use of the vehicles, and consequently conflict arose between the Act and the ordinances. This amendment brings the Act into line with the ordinances, and because a wider sphere of use is included, the tariff in respect of red number-plates has already been adapted to the new risk.

Section 17 (1) (a) of Act No. 29 of 1942 provides that the insurance of a vehicle which is used under a special permit shall terminate on the permanent registration of that vehicle, or on the expiration of the period of validity of either the insurance or the special permit. Clause 6 contemplates the same state of affairs in respect of a vehicle which is used under a temporary permit. Furthermore, section 17 (3) is also being amended to provide, in the case where the insurance of a motor vehicle is terminated before the expiration of the current insurance period, for the repayment of the premium for the unexpired insurance period as from the date on which the token of insurance is returned to the company by which it was issued. At the moment the said section provides that in the case of the termination of the insurance before the expiration of the current insurance year the premium for the unexpired part of the insurance year is repayable from the date of the termination of the insurance. As owners of motor vehicles often fail to return the token without delay to the companies after the termination of the insurance, however, it causes companies a good many administrative difficulties in fixing the date of the termination of the insurance. Hence this amendment.

Under section 19 (2) of the Act certain bodies, such as the State and the National Transport Commission, are exempted from the obligation to take out insurance under the Act, and for the purposes of the provisions of sections 11 and 12 the bodies are regarded as insurers, and consequently they bear the risk of compensation, and so on, themselves. Under section 11 bis claimants are obliged to submit a claim on a prescribed form when any injury has been sustained and a claim is submitted to an insurance company. Section 19 (3), however, failed to apply the obligation imposed by section 11 bis also in the event of a claim being lodged against the State, etc., with the result that claimants need not claim on the prescribed form, and consequently the State and others cannot obtain the information as contained in the form. This amendment makes it quite clear that claimants who institute claims against bodies which have been exempted under section 19 (2), must also use the prescribed form and that the other provisions of section 11bis will also be applicable.

Section 21 of Act 29 of 1942 provides that anyone may apply to the Minister to be exempted from the obligation of insuring his vehicles under that Act. The conditions of exemption are that such person must deposit with the Minister an amount of R40,000 or an equivalent security or guarantee if he wishes to be exempted in respect of a vehicle designed for the conveyance of more than eight passengers, or an amount of R12,000 or equivalent security or guarantee if he wishes to obtain exemption in respect of any other vehicle or two or more other vehicles. Clause 7 proposes to increase the amounts which any person may deposit with the Minister under section 21, to R100,000 or R50,000, respectively. The present amounts of R40,000 and R12,000 are considered to be insufficient, as one single claim can swallow up any one of these amounts. It is therefore considered essential that the amounts should be increased to R100,000 and R50,000, respectively.

Mr. Speaker, I now come to the main object of this legislation, i.e. to convert the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund, which was registered as a non-profit company under the Companies Act of 1926, into a statutory body. As hon. members are aware, the State President entered into an agreement with a consortium of 16 insurance companies under section 24 (1) (b) of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, 1942, in March, 1966. One of the terms of the agreement was that the companies had to establish a company under the name of “Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund” under section 21 of the Companies Act, 1926, in order to re-insure their risks. The company then established is being controlled by 17 directors—one appointed by each of the 16 members of the consortium, and an official of the Department of Transport appointed by the Minister. In terms of the memorandum of association and articles of association of the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund, which I shall hereafter call the fund, control over the expenditure of the moneys of the fund has been assigned to the Minister of Transport.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That, having regard to—

1. (1) the anticipated rise in the consumption of food products;
2. (2) the shrinking and uncertain nature and extent of our natural agricultural resources;
3. (3) the important role of agriculture in the national economy;
4. (4) the stability of the agricultural industry,

The pursuit of animal husbandry is probably one of the oldest practices in the world. Even in the Bible we read about the animals being improved and looked after so as to meet the needs of man. The Bible also tells us about breeding. In the time of Jacob it was arranged in such a way that spotted and speckled lambs were born. Similarly the pursuit of this practice in South Africa is an age-old one, the result being that most of us who are pursuing this practice to-day have a different approach to farming than we have to commerce, industry and mining. We have other criteria. The approach most of us have to commerce, industry and mining is different from our approach to farming. We accept that commerce, industry and mining are highly specialized spheres of trade, and in order to make an economic success of them, they have to be operated in the best-planned and most effective manner. In the same way it has, in the pursuit of agriculture, become essential to-day that farming should not be seen as a self-sufficient economy, but it is being accepted that it has become a specialized industry which plays an important role in our national economy. Consequently it is essential that those who have an interest in agriculture should not only apply modern farming methods, but also plan ahead so as to ensure that our natural agricultural resources are being utilized in the most profitable manner. Advance estimates must be made, firstly, in respect of agricultural production trends both domestically and in the rest of the world, and, secondly, in respect of the consumption of agricultural products in the world. When we produce some product or another, we may not set about it in an injudicious manner. That product must be consumed, be it domestically or abroad, and in order to make it an economic proposition there has to be a demand for that specific product. The aspects I have just mentioned should therefore be reviewed and give us an indication as to what we should produce and where it should be produced in order to ensure that the best utilization of our natural agricultural resources will result and that this will imply the greatest measure of economic advantage to the producer.

These aspects will ensure that the agricultural industry as well as animal husbandry will not become a burden to the community, but will fulfil its important role in the prosperity and in the continued existence of our national economy. To achieve this it is essential for the State as well as the producer to pay attention to the following so as to make this industry an economic one: In the first instance, I wish to refer briefly to the nature and extent of our natural agricultural resources in order to indicate why I think it essential to encourage animal husbandry. The Republic of South Africa covers an area of roughly 472,000 square miles, or 143 million morgen. Of this area approximately 120 million morgen is available for agricultural purposes, and it is estimated that merely 15 per cent ought to be utilized for crop cultivation. The rest, i.e. 85 per cent, is only suitable for stock-farming owing to topography, climatic factors and types of soil. South-West Africa, which can for all practical purposes be regarded as forming one production area along with South Africa, covers an area of 318,000 square miles, of which only 1 per cent has a rainfall higher than 25 inches per year and is regarded as suitable for crop cultivation. We can see, therefore, that the major part of our country is suitable for stock-farming only. It is therefore essential that our planning should be such that these natural resources are utilized profitably and correctly. The next thing to which attention should be paid in planning our agricultural production for the future, is the anticipated rise in the production and the anticipated consumption of products both domestically and abroad. In South Africa we find ourselves in this position that in spite of this limited area which is available for crop cultivation, the production of agricultural crops is still increasing steadily, to such an extent that we have permanent surpluses of certain field and horticultural crops which have to be exported, and in other cases temporary surpluses which also have to be exported in order to dispose of them.

However, all the indications are that in spite of this limited area of land available for field crop production, we shall be able to produce enough for the foreseeable future if the following methods are applied: The first method that has to be applied is large-scale mechanization, which leads to better soil cultivation, better soil conservation, a shorter planting-season, more effective weed combating and a faster method of harvesting. The second method is the use of intensive fertilizer, manuring, soil analyses, the correct utilization of manuring, etc., and the third is better seed. Hon. members who are in the agricultural industry will appreciate how important a factor better seed, i.e. the hybrid seed, is in increased production per unit. It is for that reason that with the application of modern farming methods we shall generally speaking be able to produce more and more per morgen and be able to meet our own needs.

Mr. Speaker, it is also essential for us to ascertain what the trend is in the rest of the world. We find that this very same trend obtains in the rest of the world. Everything indicates that in respect of field and horticultural crops we shall be able to produce enough, in spite of the increase in population. But when we look at the rest of South Africa and South-West Africa, i.e. at this 80 per cent of our land area which is suitable for stock farming only, the picture is somewhat different. According to our statistics the volume of livestock production has by far and away not increased as much as did the volume of field and horticultural crops. If we take the figure 100 for the years 1947-’48 to 1949-’50, we see that field husbandry, horticulture and animal husbandry are in this order: Field husbandry 110, horticulture 98 and animal husbandry 96. In the years 1957-’58, i.e. ten years later, the figures were as follows: Field husbandry, 141, horticulture 161 and animal husbandry 129. Twenty years later, in the years 1966-’67, we see that field husbandry stood at 302, horticulture at 252 and animal husbandry at 159. In other words, the volume of the increase in production was 300 per cent in the case of field crops, whereas it was only 60 per cent in the case of animal husbandry. In all fairness we can therefore accept that in this respect a further increase can take place through the application of modern methods and the correct approach to stock-farming. But I want to make it very clear that we should not think of increased production in terms of greater numbers. We shall have to concentrate on a bigger yield per animal and a bigger yield per morgen. In the main pastoral products include wool, pelts, meat and milk. Sheep are responsible for the first two, i.e. wool and pelts, and I do not wish to go into those aspects; one of my colleagues will refer to them later on. I just want to point out that in respect of the marketing of wool and pelts we are for the most part dependent on the overseas market. We who are in the agricultural industry have learned that the domestic market is the most stable and the safest market and that it offers the greatest measure of security to the farming industry. Nor do I want to say much about dairy products, but in this regard I just want to refer to what has happened already. In the early sixties we had a surplus of dairy products which we had to export, and owing to low export prices or losses on exports, a downward adjustment of prices had to be made. This resulted in such a decrease in our dairy production that we ran into a shortage and prices had to be adjusted once again. In spite of the droughts it is our experience that dairy production is rapidly increasing, to such an extent that all the indications are that if we do not produce dairy products in a judicious manner, we are headed for surpluses. I do not want to go into the question of mutton any further. In passing I just want to point out that having regard to the number of sheep we have, we could in this respect, too, quite easily be headed for a surplus production, unless we have a practical approach to mutton production. As regards pork, I want to say that as a result of the fact that pork production is a short-cycle production, we shall have to handle this matter very carefully. We cannot encourage pork production and, in addition, expect no surpluses to result.

Before I proceed to the question of beef production and marketing, it is also essential for us to take note of production and consumer trends, both domestically and abroad, as far as beef is concerned. We find at present that meat is one of the most important ingredients of the modern diet. Increased meat consumption is one of the outstanding characteristics of all prosperous and developed countries in the world. In this regard beef is the most important of all. Of the total amount of red meat consumed, beef represents 53 per cent, whereas mutton and goat meat represent 38 per cent and pork as little as 10 per cent. The total world consumption of beef is increasing. As countries develop and the standard of living rises, the diet of that population changes. The more prosperous a country is, the more that nation’s diet changes from a diet rich in carbohydrates to one rich in proteins, of which beef is the most important single factor. In respect of beef requirements, I just want to read out this short quotation (translation)—

This indicates that the whole trend is that there is going to be increased consumption of beef in the world. As regards world production, it is also important to ascertain whether the world production will be able to meet this increased demand. We find that the Argentine, Australia and New Zealand, which are the acknowledged beef export countries in the world, are exporting less and less beef owing to increasing domestic consumption. That means that every country will be dependent upon its own resources, or it will have to meet the shortage from somewhere else. What is our domestic position in South Africa at present? We find that the per capita consumption of beef amongst the Whites is decreasing to a certain extent, but because of the development of this country and the development of the non-Whites, the total beef consumption must increase in the near future, because the standard of living is rising, and, as I have said, more proteins are eaten in countries where the standard of living is rising. Even to be able merely to meet the needs of the anticipated population of approximately 40 million in South Africa in the year 2,000, our production would have to be more than doubled. I say that our production would have to be more than doubled, for a rise in the standard of living goes hand in hand with this and it will have the effect that we shall require more beef. What is the production trend in South Africa? According to the annual report of the Meat Board, the trend in South Africa over the past few years has been as follows (translation)—

That is why I want to point out that at this stage we cannot meet our own needs. Consequently it can be accepted with a reasonable degree of safety that in our agricultural planning it would be indicative of the policy to be followed to say that in utilizing our agricultural resources more beef should be produced without our running the risk of being headed for surpluses. And if it will not be possible for us to consume it here, there are also indications that we shall be able to market it profitably abroad. There are several aspects to which we shall have to pay attention, such as purposeful planning so as to place beef production on a proper basis; that is essential, and the aim ought to be to aspire in the immediate future to an increase in production, even higher than the domestic consumption, which would be a good guarantee that it would be possible for us to meet our own needs and, if we should have to export, that we would be able to market it in an advantageous and profitable manner.

In this stimulation of beef production it is essential that everybody should perform his function and his duty, and that is why it is also essential for the producer to look at certain aspects. Owing to the time limit I shall not be able to discuss them, but I just want to touch upon them briefly. Firstly, the producer will have to see to it that the farming systems he applies, have been adapted to agro-ecological conditions, i.e. animals acclimatized to his environment; secondly, better selection of breeding animals for specific characteristics; thirdly, breeding and cross-breeding must be undertaken judiciously; fourthly, his general management must improve, i.e. additional feeding, mineral licks, winter feeding, the combating of diseases and parasites, and the elimination of unproductive animals; fifthly, a better finish for and more effective marketing of his product, and, sixthly, better and more judicious use of our natural grazing.

The State, on the other hand, also has a duty to stimulate this production, and I just want to refer to this in brief. First of all I want to mention research and guidance, which have to indicate the policy to be followed. Although basic research is essential, attention must in particular be paid to applied research which has a more specific economic object in view. That is to say, experiments in respect of the following: the improved and more economic utilization of the veld, and better methods of feeding animals; experiments and research must be conducted in regard to ways in which the feeding of animals can be improved. What I have in mind here is, firstly, intensive feeding for the purpose of fattening animals; secondly, supplementary feeds in the form of licks so that one may not find a tremendous loss of weight occurring during the winter and dry months, and thirdly, breeding and selecting the right type of animal. In South Africa we have almost every breed of cattle that is to be found in the whole world. To my mind this injudicious importation and crossbreeding should be curbed to a certain extent.

When we come to the determination of prices, which should also be a guiding line, regard should be had to the fact that we should view production as a whole over a long period and promote the production trends in it; in other words, when prices are determined, this should be done in proportion to other agricultural commodities.

In conclusion I want to refer briefly to the marketing aspect, which is another very important aspect as regards the stimulation of beef production. For the present we have a surplus removal scheme which briefly amounts to this in practice, namely that floor prices are determined, or a minimum price, for various grades and weights. These floor prices are guaranteed by the Meat Board and only come into operation when this specific grade and weight failed to fetch a certain price. In such cases the board intervenes and buys up the surplus cattle and disposes of them in the most profitable manner. But in order to maintain this guarantee, we have nine controlled areas where this board acts in order to back the price or to give that guarantee. Then we have the commercial sector which buys that meat. Here we make use of the auction-on-the-hook system so as to be able to determine what the commercial sector is prepared to pay for a particular carcass. This system has functioned satisfactorily up to now, but the rapid development of South Africa in virtually every sphere necessitates our having to look at this system briefly to-day. We must keep pace with development; we must live in harmony with development, and for advance planning it is essential that we should rather be a few steps ahead. We find that tremendous development has taken place in the sphere of transport, such as tarred roads, electric trains, air transport, etc. In addition there are tremendous developments in the sphere of refrigeration. The methods of refrigeration and of defrosting have caused this consumer prejudice to disappear. We find that owing to this rapid development abattoirs and meat processing factories, which in the past were of necessity built in consumer areas as a result of the economic aspect, can now also operate economically in production areas. The method of meat presentation is changing drastically. The old conventional method of buying meat over the counter at the butcher shop, where he cuts off a piece for the customer, is changing. We are now buying prewrapped cuts of meat at supermarkets. The likes and buying habits of the public, of the consumers, are changing. Now one asks oneself whether the current marketing system fits in with these changes. Is it not in the interests of both the producer and the consumer that we should look at this? My opinion is that we can in fact look at it profitably, without depriving the producer of his guaranteed price. In fact, we must give him the assurance that it will still be maintained, but we can apply this just as effectively in another way, but in such a way that the supply may be more fluid. In the second place, we must also look after the consumer, and it should be seen to that the consumer will at all times be able to obtain, wherever it is most convenient for him, the best quality in the form he prefers. This will encourage production, stabilize prices and stimulate the consumption of beef.

That is why I want to make this request to the hon. the Minister, namely that he should at this stage—and I think it is important that he should do so as soon as possible in order that we may be a few paces ahead in our advance planning—appoint a committee, and I am not thinking in terms of a commission, which can investigate these changed circumstances. It is also unnecessary for them to take evidence, but they merely have to act on information available to them in the Meat Board and in the Department of Agriculture, and they must also take into account the changed circumstances in regard to meat presentation. Such a small committee ought to be able to submit a report quite soon, a report on where we can adjust and integrate this system of ours in such a way that it will be possible for us to keep pace with these circumstances.

I have listened with great interest to the mover of the motion and I would like to say a word or two about the point on which he finished off, namely the suggestion that we should have just a small committee which might go into the matter and make certain recommendations to the Minister; and here we go back to where we started from 21 years ago. I want to move at once an amendment to this motion so that as I speak the hon. the Minister and hon. members will appreciate the point of view of this side of the House.

You have no point of view.

The hon. member who made that interjection should look at his side of the House if he wants to see the interest in agriculture and in the food supplies of South Africa as indicated by their attendance during this very important debate to-day. He should not talk to me about having no point of view. There is the answer, the empty benches on the Government side. [Interjections.] This is not our motion, and what is more, in the debate that is coming we will show the hollowness of the whole of the Government’s policy in regard to this matter; and it will not take more than five or six United Party members to do that. [Interjections.] I want to move my amendment at once—

This motion is then a motion of censure of the Government for its lack of policy and its failure to take adequate notice of warnings that have been given in the past. The hon. the mover of the motion, in asking for a committee at this stage, is proving our case, because he is saying that what we have is inadequate and it is inefficient and he wants an inquiry immediately.

I did not say that.

If he were satisfied that the Government’s policy was an efficient and an effective one, that it was a dynamic policy and that it was meeting the needs of South Africa, he would not have come with the speech he has just made, nor would he have moved this motion. Why is this motion before the House? It is here because the hon. member believes that the situation in South Africa calls for a discussion of this kind in Parliament, the highest forum in the country; and because he believes that, he brought his motion before the House. He is dissatisfied; he believes these things need looking into. My memory goes back 21 years ago, when this Government came into power. You remember the old cry and the piece of bread that was passed around here by the then Minister of Agriculture? The cry was: “Skaapvleis en wit brood”. Well, there may be white bread to-day, and there may be mutton, but the speech of the hon. member needs nobody to garnish it to show the parlous condition in which the livestock industry is now being placed. But I want to look at it for a moment from a much wider angle than that brought to the debate by the mover of the motion.

From this side of the House we say it is not sufficient that we have a healthy and a thriving livestock industry. The hon. member placed most of the emphasis on beef and one can imagine from his background and from the motion that that was probably quite a fair assessment of the position. But I want to go much further and say that the livestock industry in South Africa, as with all branches of agriculture—it does not matter what branch it is—in our opinion calls for a virile, an efficient and effective section of our population; a strong, virile farming community must go along with the development of all branches of agriculture. If we get agriculture in the hands of big companies, limited liability companies, and we take it away out of the hands of the farmer, from the individual farmer, then agriculture in South Africa is doomed. You may be able to provide then under certain circumstances a food supply for the people of South Africa, but you will have lost the soul of South Africa. We want farmers who will handle farming and keep it in their hands. We want the youngster who walks about barefoot and feels with his bare toes the newly ploughed field. [Laughter.] The hon. member laughs. I suppose he has done it. Has the hon. member ever held a plough barefoot behind the oxen? Of course he has. He knows what I am talking about. A man who was born on the sixth storey of a block of flats and has never put his bare feet on Mother Earth does not know what I am talking about this afternoon. That is why there are so few here.

The man who grew up in a flat may be a better farmer than you are.

I am going to ask the Minister a question and I hope he will stick to that statement he has just made, because the boy born on the sixth floor of a block of flats is entitled to put his bare feet on the earth, too, and to become a farmer in South Africa.

Of course.

The Minister says “of course”. We are making headway, Sir. But what is he doing to promote it? What chance has a boy born on the sixth floor of a block of flats of becoming a practical farmer in South Africa?

He has every facility.

The Minister says he has every facility. I am surprised the Minister does not burn his tongue when he makes a statement like that. Every practical farmer in this House knows that that youngster to-day has no hope whatsoever of becoming a farmer in terms of our present farming economy. But I repeat that we have to get our people back on the land. This movement away from the land and into the towns not only has to be stopped, but has to be put into reverse. And we have got to bring as part of our policy, as part of our philosophy, the belief in a strong and virile farming community back on the farms again; people who are prepared to accept less in terms of money reward for their labour but who want the life and who are prepared to play their part, even for a lesser money reward than dabbling on the stock exchange and matters of that kind. That is the backbone and the soul of the community in South Africa. The South African community is the people who will have their feet on the land and put their roots into our soil and who will realize that the soil is something to be protected, not because they were taught this as a lesson at school, but because they see it in front of their eyes—people with water and soil conservation born and bred in the marrow of their bones from the time that they first see the light of day. Those are the people that we want. And if there are youngsters in our urban communities who have to be given an opportunity, because they feel that they can tackle that kind of job, then our economic philosophy should permit them to take their place on the land alongside the youngsters that are born there. And that is basic to the view of this side of the House in regard to all these questions that arise, be it livestock or any other branch of agriculture. But, let us look at livestock. And I want to say that after 21 years I believe that the fact that a motion of this kind comes before the House is a tragedy. And the time has now come for us to realize that it is not only Mr. farmer who has to change his methods to keep up with what is taking place in the development in so many branches of agriculture, such as livestock farming and so forth, but that the Government policy and Government philosophy towards it must also change. They must keep up. The time has come surely when we on the farms have to say to the Government. Stop pointing the finger at us and keep telling us that we must produce more economically. Come and do your stuff also and see to it that we are given an opportunity to produce more economically. The farming community are trying to forge ahead but their forging ahead is continually pushing against a policy that has come down to us from 25, 30, 40 and 50 years ago. And I think the time has come now that the Government as a matter of policy should investigate the whole question from the point of view of a new look, not by means of a committee or a commission, but by means of the hon. the Minister and his advisers. And his advisers have all the in formation in the world. They have been overseas. They have studied their problem and they have grown up with it. He has advisers who are practical farmers throughout the length and breadth of our country, in agriculture, livestock and horticulture. In every branch of our farming activities he has his advisers. He can call them in and they will be only too pleased to give of their experience and the lessons that they have learnt. Let us come with a completely new look at the philosophy which is guiding our policy for agriculture in South Africa And so I should like to ask the hon. the Minister this first question, because I believe it is basic. Does the Minister want to see an established farming community of farmers on the soil? Can he tell us whether he is happy when he sees the movement away from the farms, from the platteland, into the towns? Does that movement away from the platteland coincide with his views as something desirable? This is basic in my opinion. Will the hon. the Minister say to his advisers in the department and in the corresponding Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure: My policy is to keep farmers on the land and I want the farmers’ sons to stay on the land and I also want a youngster who is born in Natal and who is growing up in Natal but who shows aptitude and wants the training, to be given the opportunity of also becoming a farmer in South Africa, a white farmer. There is the issue, there is the question. Does the hon. the Minister want white farmers and their sons who come after them to stay on the farms, or does he not? If the Minister is satisfied to see the drain of the white population away from the farms into the towns then I am beating the air. We are then looking at the thing from a totally different point of view. I listened to the hon. member who introduced the motion and I have no complaints about the steps that he suggested might be taken in regard to the improvement of our livestock industry. But when we come down to tin tacks in regard to what I would like to call the new look for agriculture, then I think we should go very much further. And let us deal for one moment with this question of multiple use of our country. The price of land is going up notwithstanding the droughts and all the difficulties that we have. And one could elaborate on that. In spite of all that, the price of land continues to grow and grow until it is a fact that certain sections of farming land in South Africa to-day cannot pay the interest and redemption even on the price at which it could be sold.

Do you want an increase in the price?

If the hon. member will listen to me he will follow what I am getting at. I am sure he has more than an abc intelligence. I am saying that the price of land is going up and is continually going up. And that therefore makes it necessary for a farmer to produce more per acre if he wants to come out as a farmer. And when I talk about multiple use, let me for example explain to the hon. the Minister what I have in mind. Take our beef industry which was referred to by the hon. member. Sheep and cattle can be run together and are being run together in certain sections. Let us take an animal such as the eland which only now is being domesticated to any extent in South Africa. The eland does not clash with cattle. You can run eland and cattle on the same veld and they do not clash. The eland does not eat what the cattle eat and the cattle do not eat what the eland eats. And so you can get far more protein per acre by running two different types of animals like that in the same areas. The biological and econological studies that have been carried out in South Africa have gone far beyond that level. There is valuable scientific information available for the Minister if he will only call for it.

One of our difficulties in my opinion is that it takes a long time before the farmer, the working farmer to-day, gets the result of scientific investigations and scientific lessons from our own scientists. There are scientific conclusions that are soundly based and which have been worked out as a result of experiments and so on, carried out in practice, which have shown the right conclusions which the scientists have drawn from the facts. But those lessons do not get across easily to our farming community. Sometimes years and years go by before it reaches the farming community. There is a big lag in between. The farmer is a conservative man. I know that. We are all verkramptes, the lot of us who come from farms. We are therefore slow to learn the lessons. A farmer will not willingly rush into some new venture until he is satisfied that he will at any rate have more than a bare passing chance of making a profit out of it. These are the things that matter as far as we are concerned. We have at the present time in Natal an unexplored use of cane tops running into hundreds of thousands of tons per annum. They are not being used. They are not being burnt to-day to any great extent. They are being turned back into humus, but surely they could go through the body of an animal and produce protein and still go back again as humus into the soil and in a far better and more concentrated condition than going through as cane tops. The hon. the Minister laughs.

You are a very good farmer. Why do you not do it?

May I tell the hon. the Minister that I grow trees. Do you know what a tree is? The hon. the Minister must not interrupt with silly interjections like that. Let him go to Mauritius and see where it is being done, where cane tops are fed to cattle and hundreds of thousands of tons of kraal manure are going onto the land. And you are producing beef, you are producing protein at the same time as you are enriching the soil. One of these days we may start wondering why we have gone in for these inorganic fertilizers to such an extent as we have in South Africa. It is all very well putting in tractors instead of the trek ox. We see the immediate benefits. But the tractor does not give us kraal manure. And one of these days our big farmers may be wondering what has happened to the organic content of their soil. These are the things which need to be looked at and not by means of a commission. The hon. the Minister ought to take away the cynical idea from his mind that he has the answers to all these things and come down to earth and realize that he has to give a new look to agriculture. I know he is tired and I know that he is an old man who is tired and weary of the volk. He meets deputations day after day who come and worry him.

Are you looking into a mirror?

The hon. member need not worry about my looking into a mirror. I will put my brain against that of the hon. member any day of the week that he likes. He need not worry about how many summers have passed over my head. I am talking about the hon. the Minister. The Minister is being beaten down by deputations. They come day after day, week after week and they come and impress themselves on his mind until mentally he is being hammered into the ground. Now he has to pull himself up with a jerk, or hand over to a younger man. He must get down to the job, he must not go on in the time-honoured old way, hoping that a subsidy here and a bit of assistance there is going to see South Africa through its troubles. The first requirement to produce beef or to build up the country’s meat industry is the production of the men. We must first of all produce the men and we must start at the top.

Let the two of us make a test in beef constituency?

That is idle talk across the floor of the House. Our land is becoming so valuable it is being cut up into smaller and smaller allotments, you cannot ranch beef any more. The number of beef ranches are getting less and less, and I say we have to go in for a breeder-feeder policy in this country. The calves of our dairy herds should be taken and our surplus maize and surplus milk must be used to put beef onto those calves. Then those calves must go to the market when they are fit for slaughter, not as newly-born calves as veal, but they must produce beef. Our surplus maize and surplus milk can go into those animals and give us beef. All these things need to be examined and brought into operation, they should be brought forward as a practical proposition by the Minister. He should have a live, enthusiastic policy behind which he stands as the driving force to see that it is put into operation. Then, whether it is beef or any other branch of our agriculture, we will have what I want, namely farmers on our land, back on the land, the soul of our nation now being protected by the people who are really keeping it green and alive—the farmer, with his bare feet in the newly-ploughed soil.

Mr. Speaker, because my time is particularly limited, I shall not reply in too much detail to what the hon. member for South Coast has just said. I want to begin by saying that we in South Africa have no production problem as far as agricultural products are concerned. The primary function of agriculture is to supply the country with food and to furnish our secondary industries with raw materials, and in this respect our agriculture has proved a great success under this Government and its two competent Departments of Agriculture.

The problems which we are currently experiencing in our agriculture are the result of great technological development, and this has entailed administrative problems on our farms. Many of our farmers could simply not keep pace with this rapid technological development in the field of agriculture. In this production pattern of our country’s agriculture we must endeavour as far as possible to obtain economic stability in order to adapt the production of our most important crops to one another, so that the production of the one commodity will not detrimentally influence that of the other, but that they will adapt properly. In order to elaborate further on this statement, I want to take two of the most important commodities as examples, and they are the maize and the meat industries in South Africa. Both of these commodities are very important staple foodstuffs in our country. In the case of maize the gross farming revenue is in the region of R170-R180 million per year, while that of beef is in the region of about R135 million a year.

Maize is the agricultural commodity which occupies the largest extent of tillable agricultural land in South Africa. The figure at this stage is as much as 6 million morgen. In certain areas, for example the Highveld area, the gross revenue from this commodity averages 70.5 per cent of the total revenue from farming. In certain parts, such as the Western Transvaal, it increases to 84.3 per cent of the total revenue from farming, and the production tendency is a continually increasing one as a result of this rapid technological development in the form of fertilization, better cultivation, better mechanization, better seed, etc. The maize industry is the most progressive agricultural industry in South Africa and has the highest potential growth rate.

That this has been the case in recent years is very important, because not only has the maize industry supplied one of the most important staple foodstuffs, but were it not for the surpluses of the industry—and we must regard maize surpluses as a food reserve in South Africa—and for the fact that these surpluses have been stored up under our Joseph’s policy, we would most certainly not have had the livestock which we do have in the Republic to-day. With these maize surpluses we have also recently had to save large portions of our stock in drought areas. We can only pay tribute to our maize farmers for the wonderful progressiveness which they have displayed. But it is specifically this tremendous growth which has created certain marketing problems for us in the maize industry. It brought about a downward trend in prices. The harvest of 1967 of 106 million bags caused us difficulty in the maintenance of a stabilized price, owing to large surpluses which had to be sold on the foreign market which is not a very competitive market.

If we look at the past two decades we see the rapid increase in maize production, all agricultural production in fact—and it is also the tendency in most of the industrially developed countries that the increase in production is more rapid than increase in domestic demand. This caused us to lose about R47.7 million over the period from 1948-’49 to 1966’67 on our foreign markets, while our revenue was only about R19 million. When the figures of the latest export programme become available, the amount will shoot up to a loss of about R80 million which we have suffered as compared with the domestic price paid to our producers. Over-production in the maize industry has therefore become an inherent tendency. It must be marketed on a highly competitive foreign market with a consequent decrease in price.

If we compare this picture with our country’s meat products we see that the most important difference is that the production growth rate was very much slower than the demand growth rate, and this resulted in a better price structure having developed for the meat industry. Our beef production has evidenced almost no increase during the past seven years, and this can perhaps be the result of the tremendous droughts which have thinned out the livestock, but in contrast with maize we are here faced with a much lower potential growth rate, As a result of the thinning out of the livestock it takes the meat industry longer to recover its production potential. There is also another problem. A very large percentage of our country’s livestock belongs to Bantu, and for practical reasons they are excluded if we want to increase our slaughtering turnover in the field of beef production.

The position was therefore that, as far as these two important commodities are concerned, the one increased too rapidly and the other too slowly. I now want to make this assertion. As a result of the firm establishment of the one commodity, the production of the other commodity thereby tends to be displaced to a certain extent. Perhaps this is the position at present in our Highveld area. Mr. Speaker, we must therefore link these two commodities with one another on a complementary basis. This means that we must be able to apply mealie surpluses to the greater stimulation of beef production growth in South Africa. This can be done by increasing the slaughtering turnover, by marketing slaughter stock at an earlier age, by increasing the quality of the slaughter stock on the existing market. Too much stock of a low quality is slaughtered in our controlled areas. More than 50 per cent of the carcasses are Grade II and Grade III, about 30 per cent being Grade III. With a little additional feeding we could greatly improve the quality and grading of the meat. Our farmers know what a small can of yellow mealie meal can do as regards finally conditioning an ox. With the application of maize products we can make slaughter stock marketable at an earlier age.

But we must also seek means to link together the production of these two commodities. In the first instance I think that there should be better liaison between the different control boards, i.e. the Meat Board and the Mealie Board, in respect of this marketing problem. I address myself to hon. members who are members of our control boards. Better conditions ought to be created. There must be better co-ordination in the development of these two industries. The producers can be encouraged by, for example, the payment of premiums on higher grades, and to encourage the maize producers to make use of their maize and by-products for the production of more meat.

The hon. member for South Coast said that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services undertakes a tremendous amount of research and that certain results allegedly do not reach the farmers. I think the time has come for the South African Agricultural Union also to play its role in respect of this matter; that it should also link up. Just as it forms a marketing link between the farmer and the Department, so it should also form a link, by means of guidance, between the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the farmer on his farm. We can put this matter right by beginning to link these commodities together on the farms.

Mr. Speaker, when I heard the hon. member for Bethal speaking about agriculture, and more specifically about the linking together of the two facets of farming, stock-farming and maize production, I almost thought that he was speaking from this side of the House. He made the plea which this side of the House has been making repeatedly for the last few years, and which we made in debates during this very Session. We recommended that these surpluses be used by processing them and placing them at the disposal of stock-farming in order to save the stock. I remember that on various occasions I indicated what beef carcasses ought to weigh when they are marketed, and how we were busy slaughtering, among others, our breeding animals while this is not necessary unless they are old. I also said that we must insure that the stock sent to the controlled markets are of a certain weight; in other words, that the carcases must weigh more; that the weight for large stock ought to be 500 lbs., instead of 300 lbs. as it is at present. I made certain of the facts. I shall not be astounded if we have another surprise one of these days in the form of the hon. member for Bethal crossing over to this side!

I should like to come back to the hon. member for Karas, who moved this motion. I do not know whether there has ever been a greater censure of the Government’s neglect of livestock. One can but judge from the figures and the manner in which he put the matter. He told us that, as far as agriculture was concerned, the figure of 100 had increased to 300 over a number of years. The figure for stock-breeding had only increased to 150. In other words, stock-breeding has only developed half as much as agriculture. We gain nothing by blaming it all on the drought. Stock-breeding has been neglected, as the hon. member repeatedly indicated in his speech. In respect of the system of marketing, price determination and every other facet, stock-breeding has lagged behind. That cannot merely be ascribed to the drought. The drought is, admittedly, responsible to a large extent. But we are not the only ones who say so. It is said far and wide that the Government does not have a dynamic policy to get out of the groove in which it has landed itself in respect of subsidies and their continual extension. I see that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture has now just entered the House. I have already wanted to comment on what he said the other day. I am now going to do so. The hon. the Deputy Minister said last week that in respect of the drought the farmers are fighting with their backs to the wall. We are in complete agreement with him. He said that we should not always merely rub salt into the wounds; we must come to light with something constructive. I want to agree with him wholeheartedly. I think it was his maiden speech as Deputy Minister and we quite appreciated it. But I also want to tell him that from this side of the House these methods were repeatedly suggested, methods which the Government is now accepting, but always two, three or four years too late.

What is that?

The making available of kinds of fodder to see the animals through the drought, as well as the establishment of more corporations, are things which the Government has only begun with now. For how long has the plea not been made on this side of the House? Ever since the commission in respect of fodder banks was appointed! Even before the present Minister was Minister of Agriculture, when the commission issued its report, we already emphasized the necessity of saving animals in times of drought. We suggested that the available fodder, to use the hon. member for Bethal’s words, be prepared and supplied to farmers by means of fodder banks, to see the animals through the drought and thereby to ensure a better quality of product when it reaches the market. These are suggestions which this side of the House has already been making since those days. Then the hon. the Deputy Minister still says that we must not rub salt into the wounds and that we must make suggestions which could be helpful.

I want to mention another example. I still want to continue. From what side of the House did the proposal for the veld conservation and reclamation schemes come? The other day the hon. member for Karas spoke at length about price determination as far as the marketing of meat was concerned. But he did not make one constructive suggestion. He is a member of the Meat Board. How should the Meat Board change its marketing system?

I did not have the time. I will tell you another day.

I regret that the hon. member is no longer on the board. He is in a better position now. How must the Meat Board alter its marketing and distribution schemes to adapt to the times, as the hon. member over there said? How must it be done?

The hon. member for Newton Park spoke the other day about the Government’s price determination policy. Then the hon. the Minister of Agriculture asked whether, if there are surpluses, one should always encourage the farmers to produce more, irrespective of what the surplus is, by an unsound price policy. Then he mentioned the production of prickly pear leaves. Sir, have you ever heard such a nonsensical argument. How many times have we on this side of the House not said that one cannot always encourage the farmers to produce more and more, regardless of whether it is sold or not. But as regards a product the greater portion of which is consumed in this country, surely it is possible to have a price determination policy which will encourage the farmers to continue with its production? Maize is an example of such a product. The hon. the Deputy Minister said the other day that the production would increase to 200 million bags if there were good reasons. I want to agree with him. If we have good seasons, the maize production will increase, especially with the improved technological methods at our disposal. With the normal consumption in the country and perhaps additional consumption in respect of stock-breeding, a minor percentage of the crop is consumed domestically. Mr. Speaker, it then goes without saying that one must change the price adjustment policy to such an extent that it remains in proportion to world prices. Otherwise it is like a labryinth in which one does not know where one is going. Where the greatest portion of the product is consumed domestically, it is possible to follow a price policy which serves to encourage the farmer and which can bring him back to the farm, as an hon. member said a moment ago.

What is the position of agriculture to-day? The hon. member for Karas mentioned many figures, but now I do not want to depend on figures as such. I should like to read out to you what is stated in the agricultural economic development programme during the years 1960 to 1965. I have the English version here in which it is stated that—

The commentary at the bottom of the page reads as follows—

Mr. Speaker, in all modesty I now want to ask: If agriculture’s part in the domestic economy was 9.6 per cent in 1965, where are we now in 1969—and here in the report mention was made of the incessant droughts in 1965—what is the figure now? Is it still 9.6 per cent? A large part of agriculture consists of stock-breeding. An hon. member also indicated how little progress was made in stock-breeding. If that is the case what must we do to put the matter right? The issue before last of the Financial Mail deals with agriculture and the drought and then states in the last paragraph of the article—

When recriminations are levelled at the Government that this is not a dynamic policy, I am in agreement. The farmers are in a sorry plight and the Government only gives a little financial help here, a little financial help there. There is no change in the policy of the Government to say that this industry must return to being an industry worth while for those participating in it. A policy must be formulated which will bring this about. There must be a short-term as well as a long-term policy which will once more make agriculture an industry of which people can be proud and to which the young boys will be proud to return.

Last week I was in Port Elizabeth to attend a wool growers’ meeting. It shocked me that some of the members of the executive, who are among the best farmers in the Eastern Cape, told me that they were rather going to realize their remaining assets even if it were at deflationary prices and even if they had to suffer losses. They take the view that they should rather use the little money which they will thus obtain to follow the general public in striking out in this new direction, i.e. the property market and the development of suburban areas. They want to take their money and migrate there and they no longer want to remain on the farms.

Why not?

Because they cannot make a decent living on the farms. That was a very stupid question from the hon. the Minister.

Why can the farmers not make a decent living on the farms?

On the one hand because they are in the grip of a drought and are receiving very little assistance, and on the other hand because the prices which they received for their products are not such that they can make a living. Those are the main reasons. Is it necessary to ask a question about why a person does not want to farm when over the past few years it has been proved here by means of figures that the capital investment of people in agriculture is such that they can only obtain 1.5 and 1.8 per cent dividends on their investment? Is it then still necessary to ask why the farmers do not want to participate in agriculture? How must we prevail upon our sons to continue farming when they say that they no longer can because they are only falling more deeply into debt as a result of the continual purchase of fodder and the high interest rates of loans at the bank. From what side of the House do repeated pleas come that interest concessions should be made to the farmer?

Why do the farmers buy fodder?

The hon. the Minister must not ask me such repeatedly foolish questions. The man buys fodder to keep his livestock alive. When he begins to buy fodder, he does not know for how long he will have to continue to do so and when he has fed his animals for a few months he is therefore no longer in a position to stop doing so.

Then you are surely admitting that he buys fodder in consequence of the drought.

I did not say that it was not in consequence of the drought. Of course it is in consequence of the drought that he buys fodder. What I am arguing about at the moment is the fact that if he must borrow money from the bank, and he must pay 8½ percent interest on it, he cannot continue with the feeding because the burden of interest becomes such that he cannot go any further. I refuse to believe that there are no farmers on the other side of the House who have the interest of the farmers at heart, who will not agree with us that the burden of interest, which the farmers must bear in respect of private loans and loans from the bank, is too high. If we can discuss this matter, we may be able to obtain relief at a later stage.

It affords me a great deal of pleasure to second this amendment. During the past six years the drought has proved a great setback to stock-farming. There was also a lack of finance and fodder to keep the stock alive. It is also no use arguing, as the hon. member for Karas did, that we must guard against marketing too many sheep since we may then be left with a surplus of mutton. Was Australia concerned about the numbers of its sheep more than doubling? Were they concerned or proud that the production of their wool increased from 1½million to 5 million bales? Is New Zealand, where 1 million bales were sheared and 2 million bales are now produced, concerned about that? When a country can increase its wool clip from R130 million to R260 million, I think it is something which the country can be very proud of. It is surely nothing to be concerned about if we have a mutton surplus. What can, indeed, give reason for concern is that one can have an unrealistic price for mutton and that this situation will have to be rectified when an export surplus develops later. That is not something to be afraid of, because what one loses on the swings one gains on the roundabouts. The same also applies to beef, because what will we do later when we have a surplus of beef and we must export meat? What kind of beef does Australia use for export? They export their old cows and animals to America because America has too many fat cattle and they cannot make polony and other processed kinds of meat if they do not have lean meat. There is a wonderful market for this meat, and if I were to quote statistics it would surprise you to see what prices Australia obtains in America for its lean meat.

They can export their lambs to this country at 10 cents apiece. Are you prepared to compete with that?

Mr. Speaker, I cannot reply to all the questions which the Minister puts to me, across the floor of the House. I shall do my best to reply to quite a few of them. The Minister will soon be asking me whether I am prepared to compete with fat lamb production at 13 cents a pound. It is not possible in this country; we know that it is not possible and it is therefore not necessary for me to answer the question. If we could produce such lambs as easily as New Zealand does, it would have been possible.

Mr. Speaker, apart from the drought, which had a restrictive effect on our stock-farming and which contributed much to our livestock being what it is to-day, there has been a large measure of neglect on the part of the Government, especially as regards stock-farming, and therefore I have pleasure in seconding the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, how disappointing! The hon. member for South Coast stood up here and complained because a proper agricultural debate could not be conducted, and then in the course of a tirade he spoke a lot of rubbish which really did not befit a man of his status. The hon. member for East London (City) has just read out to us how agriculture as a branch of production, which is naturally a slowly growing branch of production, is relatively taking second place to other branches of production in the country, and now the hon. member for South Coast wants to send everyone back to the farms again who wants to go. What he is going to do with them there, I do not know. He speaks here about a “new look policy”. Mr. Speaker, if I may continue in English for a moment: “I have seldom seen a new look policy so mini-sighted”.

On this side of the House we have tried to conduct an agricultural debate in a constructive way, in some way meaningful to our farming population, but it is very clear that hon. members opposite have no farming constituencies to answer to, and that is why they can carry on like this.

Mr. Speaker, to return to the motion before the House, for which I am grateful to the hon. member for Karas, and which he moved here in such an efficient manner, I just want to say that one must not gauge the contribution of agriculture to South African life in terms of statistics. It cannot be measured in terms of statistics. We can mention many statistical facts, but they do not fit in with this debate. The unfortunate fact is that if a country as a whole is particularly prosperous in the industrial and financial fields, agriculture is under pressure. If agriculture were to reach the stage where it did not need to relinquish people to other sectors, if it had no surpluses, if agriculture could no longer furnish all the necessary raw materials for the factories, we would have reached a stage where agriculture was entering a boom period. But that is not what we want in South Africa, because it is not in the interests of South Africa as a whole. Therefore we must see agriculture in perspective; we must see agriculture as that branch of production which must supply food for the whole population of the future, hence the motion of the hon. member for Karas. The hon. member made out a case here for channeling agriculture, and the use of other products where there is over-production on the export market, in the direction of stock-breeding where no over-production exists yet.

Sir, my task is to say a few words about the wool industry. My time is very limited. The wool industry is in the grip of a pincer; on the one hand the marketing problem and on the other the production problem. About the marketing problem I do not want to say much here, except that we should compete on the foreign market, a market over which we have very little control but where our Wool Board, together with the wool boards of the other interested countries, makes a particular contribution in ensuring the stability of the industry. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say much more about this marketing problem because I think that the marketing of wool is in the very good hands of the National Wool Growers’ Association, the Wool Board and the Wool Commission. In addition we are in the reasonably fortunate position that, as far as meat is concerned, we are domestically perhaps considerably better off than countries such as Australia and New Zealand. Approximately one-third of the revenue from the sheep industry comes from meat. Our domestic mutton prices are substantially higher than in both Australia and New Zealand. Our average mutton price for the past season was about 22c per lb. Added to that we have the advantage that the market is close by—close by in comparison to Australia and New Zealand where they have to export at low prices. Therefore the tendency is, or ought to be, to channel sheep production in the direction of meat. We cannot say that the sheep industry is a very profitable one. It is calculated that per small stock unit one makes about R3 net profit in the extensive sheep-grazing areas and about R2 in the more sour veld areas. If one adds to that the investment per small stock unit is about R60 and that the overhead costs are still to be included, then the interest which must be earned on the capital is in the vicinity of about 2.5 per cent. Since we cannot expand much in the direction of the improvement of production, especially because our sheep grazing areas are in well-developed areas, we must see if we cannot improve in the direction of quality; quality in terms of quantity of wool, quality of meat, lambing percentage, feeding, etc. Mr. Speaker, there are many problems and we shall have to think seriously about how to bridge them. Both the State and the individual will have to co-operate here. In the first instance the individual will have to evaluate himself and ask himself whether he, as an individual, has the will and the ability to accept the challenge of this industry; secondly, he will have to evaluate the potential of his farm; thirdly, he will have to evaluate the maintenance of the potential of his farm, especially in respect of grazing; fourthly, he will have to adjust the numbers of his stock, and fifthly, he must put right his farming practices. On the part of the State we shall have to face up to the fact that the interest rate which farmers earn is very low. The present interest rate is creating problems for them. In the second instance the State will have to make more intensive propaganda and will have to assit with soil conservation. In the third instance, I accept that if the prevention of the further sub-division of small lands is of extreme importance to the State, the consolidation of already existing uneconomical units must be regarded as equally important. I think that it is important in this respect to be able to use the potential of the Orange River. Above all, in the fifth instance, a purposeful education campaign in collaboration with the N.W.G.A., especially guidance in the business field, can at this stage mean more to the wool and stock industries than even considerable price increases.

Sir, I have listened with great interest to hon. members on the other side. I noticed particularly that what I regard as the substance of the motion was not really being dealt with. The substance of the motion is that the Government should pay particular attention to the encouragement of animal husbandry. Sir, we have had a speech on mealie production; we have had a speech from the hon. member for Karas in which the solution that he offered for encouraging the livestock industry was the appointment of a committee. It may well be that there is some merit in the idea of a committee.

That was only one part of it.

Yes, towards the end of his speech, for about ten minutes, the hon. member held forth on the virtues of a committee or a commission or an inquiry of some sort. Sir, I would remind the hon. member that it has been said that a camel was a horse designed by a committee. I think we have to be careful in handing over the future of our industry into the hands of a committee. Sir, I expected from the hon. member and from other hon. members a far more positive contribution in the way of suggestions. My hearing is very good indeed and I listened with great attention. However, I was out of the House for three minutes, and it may have been during those three minutes that he made his constructive suggestions. If so, they could not have been very well expressed or well thought out.

The hon. member dealt very largely with the extensive areas of South Africa. I believe, Sir, that we have to realize the importance of the intensive high rainfall areas in South Africa on the production particularly of beef. I speak of my own constituency, Mooi River, which has the largest sale-holding association in the whole of South Africa and where there are 12 sale and show holding farmers’ associations.

And a Royal Agricultural Society.

Yes, the Royal Agricultural Society is also a part of my constituency. I thank the hon. member for reminding me. This is one of the most progressive and constructive bodies in the agricultural industry in South Africa. Sir, the problem that we have to-day is to make it possible for farmers farming in Natal on high rainfall ground of high cost to intensify their production of beef. I believe that this can be done in various ways. As I say, this is a high rainfall area; it is sour veld and the production costs of the farmer producing beef are obviously high because he has to carry his stock through the winter. It is not an easy problem. Silage and other foods have to be provided. Sir, there is a tremendous potential for the production of beef and particularly for the production of beef up to the weaning stage. I think here we have some means to encourage the production of beef and to encourage the livestock industry there in general. Reference was made by one of the hon. members to Bantu cattle. This, of course, is something which I think puts an altogether false picture on the cattle position in South Africa. Where our total cattle population is some 12 million head, the contribution of Bantu cattle to the livestock production and the livestock industry in South Africa is virtually nil. In certain areas of Zululand the co-operative society’s Stock Owners have been holding sales, and other organizations also, but the number of cattle from Bantu sources coming into the market in South Africa is virtually nil.

The hon. member for Karas mentioned the new marketing practices and marketing directions like the pre-packing of meat. Here I want to return to something that I mentioned to the hon. the Minister last year. In my constituency farmers have got together to form a company. They are interested in this new direction of marketing meat. They produce the beef themselves and they wish to set up a factory to market it. As a company they wish to borrow money from the Land Bank in order to be able to set up this kind of organization. The reply I had from the Minister last year in relation to farmers who set up companies for farming production was that they were excluded either by the Statute of the Land Bank, or whatever the technicality is, from borrowing money. In my area there are farmers coming together to form companies for milk production and which are producing over 1,000 gallons of milk to-day, but they are not able to borrow money from the farmers’ bank, the Land Bank, which would enable them to go in for this. Far more people are interested, but there is a high cost of operation. You need a tremendous number of cows and you have to have irrigation; you have to have water available in large quantities in spite of the fact that we live in a high rainfall area, receiving nearly 50 inches of rain. You have to have irrigation available. When you have a group of two or three farmers producing over 1,000 gallons of milk a day, surely this is a means whereby thehon. the Minister could stimulate the livestock industry.

But you have cooperatives in Natal.

It is not a question of co-operatives, but of private companies formed by farmers to enable them to take part in the milk industry on a very big scale, which leads to the reduction of their costs, because there is intensification and they are reducing the unit cost of their product. This is a means, I believe, whereby the Minister could help, because it comes down to efficiency. If you are going to encourage the livestock industry, how do you do it? You make it more attractive to the persons participating in the industry, and it relieves the Minister himself of the necessity of fiddling with the prices, if he makes it possible for farmers to produce more intensively and more effectively.

In that way you help the hon. member for South Coast to bring more farmers to the land.

You might very well do so, because you allow other people to participate in the agricultural industry who to-day are shut out. As the hon. member for South Coast said, a boy born on the sixth storey of a block of flats finds it very difficult to become a farmer unless this father owns the block of flats; then he might have a chance. But I believe this is one of the things the Minister should certainly look into and I ask him to-day to look into this matter again with a view to making this sort of capital available to farmers who form a company for the purposes of large-scale production of milk or beef.

Then you get more farmers on the platteland?

I believe there is another problem also which requires attention. I think one of the problems we have in our livestock industry is that due to drought and for other reasons we have come to a dangerously low level as far as our production units are concerned. I am talking about the cow and the heifer. I think there is a means whereby we can help to build up the heifer potential. [Interjections.] There is a tremendous number of heifers in the dairy industry which are slaughtered annually and which could by judicious cross-breeding have been preserved—and I speak specifically again of my own area which is a highly intensive and highly progressive and a highly forward-looking section of the farming community. [Interjections.] In 1965 there were over 66,000 heifers over the age of six months slaughtered, and 25,000 heifer calves under the age of six months were slaughtered, a total of 91,000 heifers in one year which were slaughtered but which could have been, by various means, preserved for the breeding of further cattle in this country. In 1966 the figure rose to 116,000. In 1967 it fell to 87,000, and for the five months of 1968 for which figures are available 30,000 heifers were slaughtered. I believe this is a needless waste. We have to-day building up in this country a surplus of milk. We have the example of the United Kingdom which introduced a beef-calf subsidy scheme which had the effect there of increasing from 40 per cent to 70 per cent the amount of home-grown beef consumed in the United Kingdom. That was done by judicious payments of subsidies to persons who reared calves, specifically crossbred calves, for home consumption on the United Kingdom market. We have a problem in our country. We have tried it in our area. We had an organization which went into the export of super quality beef. They were able to maintain it for a certain time. It was a private co-operative which went in for export, but it fell away over a period of time because they found it was not remunerative on the Smithfield market. But I am quite certain that our problem would be in this country to enable the breeder to buy young crossbred heifers at a price which would enable him to breed beef and still come out, bearing in mind the price of his end product. I think this is one of the problems which the Minister will have to solve.

“Foei tog!”

The Minister says “Foei tog”. He sits there like a great lord, as if he is the lord of everything that goes on in this country and he is not prepared to listen to anything at all, knowing that there are over 116,000 heifers slaughtered in one year. What a potential production! I think it is a potential production which would enable us to make a magnificent contribution. In our dairy herds to-day we have a choice, through A.I. (artificial insemination) of the sort of cattle we can produce, and I believe we have a very real source of breeding stock which can be made available to the farmers, the beef farmers, through the use of crossbred cattle from the dairy herds, particularly of Natal.

Does the Minister believe that that is the best way to dispose of those calves?

Yes, that is a fair question. Does the Minister believe that this is the best thing to do with 116,000 heifers a year, just to slaughter them? Can they not be better utilized?

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. What do you want to do with all the beef in this country?

There are 116,000 potential breeding units and if the Minister can sit there and say he does not need these cattle and we can afford to slaughter them and throw them away, I will accept it from him. But can he afford to do away with 116,000 breeding units which could be used, or at least portion of them, to increase the breeding herds? Because that is our problem in this country. Due to the drought and due to the vast numbers of cattle that have had to be slaughtered, the cattle population has fallen to what I regard as a dangerously low level, and by means of these heifers and the modern use of A.I. they can be used to build up our breeding herds. But it seems the Minister has not caught up to A.I. yet. He is not switched on to modern breeding methods yet.

I know more about A.I. than you do.

There should perhaps be a low-interest loan scheme from the Land Bank to enable people to buy young heifers at a price which will make it attractive to them, remembering that they will have to compete with people buying these animals for fattening. This is one of our problems. So many young heifers coming on the market today are bought for fattening and then they are slaughtered and the ordinary farmer who wishes to buy them has to buy them at the slaughter price and then breed from them in order to maintain the cattle population of the country. I believe there is a means whereby the Minister could help the farmer who through a co-operative or some organization is buying heifer breeding stock on the open market to-day. I think these are some of the things which can be done to encourage the livestock industry, particularly the beef industry because, as I say, I think our breeding stock, and thereby the whole future of the industry, has come to a dangerously low level.

I am glad that for once I could agree with the hon. member for Mooi River, about artificial insemination in point of fact. I should like to invite the hon. member for Mooi River to look me up when he gets to Pretoria again, and I shall show him the artificial insemination station at Irene, which is to-day one of the country’s model stations. He is very welcome.

In connection with his financial problem in respect of his milch cows in his constituency, I think he should take an example from the kibbutzim in Israel if he cannot form a corporation.

Arising out of what my hon. colleagues said to illustrate how progressive thinking was possible in respect of beef production, mutton production and the application of possible maize surplus, I now just want to restrict myself to the marketing and consumer aspect of our agricultural products and processed agricultural products. The problems which they mentioned and which occur in those various industries, also hold good in respect of perishable products, citrus, poultry, dairy products and also the trees which are produced on the farm of the hon. member for South Coast. If we try to look ahead at conditions in the year 2000, 30 years into the future, what will the position then be? On the production side our farmers are very well equipped. They are well organized in their farming associations and agricultural corporations, although there are still levels, such as that in respect of perishable products, where there are shortcomings to be supplemented. The farmers are also fortunate in having at their disposal the two excellent Departments of Agriculture which disseminate information and do research over a very wide field, facilities which the farmers can make use of as circumstances may demand. As a result of numerous factors we may assume that by the year 2000 there will not be many more active farmers available than there are to-day. We may also assume that in the year 2000 we will not have much more agricultural land available than is in use to-day A formidable task therefore awaits the farmer of the future. According to projections, inter alia, by the well-known economist, Dr. M. D Marais, the farmers in the year 2000, owing to the population increase, will have to feed almost 35 million people in this country, nearly a doubling of the 17 million which must be fed at present. It is therefore a sober fact that in South Africa the growing white population in particular make a living chiefly in the cities. It is specifically with a view to this fact, added to that of the greater buying power of the Bantu and the Coloured communities that agriculture—i.e. all stock breeding as well as agronomy—will have to plan far into the future along the lines indicated here by my colleagues. It will even require revolutionary planning, because in the future very great demands are going to be made on agriculture. The much greater market of the future will involve a much more fastidious consumer, even amongst the ranks of the Bantu. It will be a body of consumers increasingly insistent upon quality, freshness, easy handling and a reasonable and stable price for foodstuffs, plus speedier service. What is of importance is that it is not only the producer who is involved in these changing circumstances, but also the consumer, especially the urban consumer, and he or she does not have a long time to wait either.

As far as the consumer is concerned, there is a vacuum in respect of organized agriculture and commerce. As I shall presently explain, the creation of really national consumers’ council, the core of which will be comprised of existing consumers’ corporations and organized consumer groups in urban areas, has become an urgent necessity if we want to keep abreast of the provision of foodstuffs in a methodical way after the year 2000 Such a national consumers’ council under the auspices of the Department of Commerce but in closer collaboration with the Department of Agriculture, will, as far as the planning of marketing and distribution is concerned, have to have much wider functions and aims than the existing Consumers’ Advisory Committee. The consumers’ committee at present consists of representatives of bodies such as the Women’s Agricultural Union, the Public Servants’ Association and others, organizations whose function is not specifically and directly the study of consumer requirements in respect of foodstuffs, but merely to advise the hon. the Minister through the National Marketing Council on a supplementary basis, in collaboration with production members on the agricultural control boards. A National Consumers’ Council with, as its only function, intensive consumer research, firm control in respect of consumer spending in as far as it concerns agricultural foodstuffs, objective education in respect of the deficiencies and good qualities of the types of foodstuffs and their presentation, bilateral co-ordination with the organized agricultural producers and/or organized commerce, is, against the background of my hon. colleague’s tenets, also to a certain extent those of the hon. member for Mooi River, an absolute necessity if we want to feed an ever increasing consumer mass with a decreasing group of producers in the most efficient and economical way possible during the ensuing years. I base my plea for larger consumer organizations on. inter alia, the following reasons. South Africa is a country which will always be subject to drought conditions, as the hon. member for South Coast rightly indicated. As a result of such drought conditions there is, first of all, the increase in the cost of living in respect of agricultural products as mirrored in the 3 per cent increase for the past year. The second reason is that the consumer pattern in respect of the purchasing of foodstuffs, is unmistakably changing, to such an extent that there are even sectors of commerce that desire organized liaison with the consumers so that they can know precisely what, how and when agricultural products are required. Thus the well-known Cape Town business man and entrepreneur of supermarket chainstores, Mr. Raymond Ackerman, recently declared that the only way in which the cost of living in respect of the provision of foodstuffs can be drastically decreased, is to eliminate wastefulness along the way between consumer and producer. It is a development, put forward by Mr. Ackerman, which I think deserves attention, especially against the background of the tenets of my hon. colleagues in the various industries.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to reply at any length to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down. I do not disagree with most of what he said about encouraging consumption among the Bantu and greater encouragement of consumer co-operatives.

However, I want to come back to the interjection made by the hon. the Minister when the hon. member for South Coast was talking. The hon. member said that we must get the people back on the land and then the hon. the Minister said that somebody born in a flat would be just as good a farmer as somebody born on the land. We are talking mainly about the beef industry to-day and it is plainly the industry that the hon. member who moved this motion dealt with. How does the hon. the Minister think a city dweller to-day is going to go into agriculture unless he has financial resources of his own?

He may have his own financial resources.

Yes, if he has his own financial resources, it is fine. If anybody is wanting to buy agricultural land to-day he can go to any financial institution but he will not be helped because agriculture as a whole is so unprofitable. For example, he can go to an insurance company even here in Cape Town, and he will not get money. These institutions are not interested in lending money on an agricultural bond. If he were to go to what has been one of the traditional forms of finance for agricultural purposes, for the buying of farms, the Boards of Executors, particularly in the country areas where the local people have invested their money which has then been put out on bond by the boards, how much money will he get? The hon. member for Walmer says,„’n ronde nul” and he should know because he has been connected with these boards of executors. Why is that? It is because the people have been withdrawing their funds from organizations like that and they have been investing it in growth funds and urban property because they know very well that there is no money to be made from agriculture.

Did he try Volkskas?

If the bank, that the hon. the Deputy Minister is mentioning, is advancing money for people in order to buy farms, I think that they are acting very much contrary to the directives of the Treasury and contrary to the directives of his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance. I do not think that the hon. the Deputy Minister should say too much about that.

As regards the question of the profitability of beef production, there is naturally cause for concern about beef production in this country. When we look at the figures, we see—I am quoting from an article by Professor Bondsma in the Meat Board’s journal of July-September—that our cattle population has remained virtually static since 1947-’48. It was then some 12.3 million. In 1963-’64 it was up to about 12.6 million and in 1965-’66 it was down again to 12.3 million. That is no achievement, under any circumstances, when we have to feed the extra people as mentioned by the hon. member for Karas.

I again want to come back to the question of the availability of funds for agriculture and particularly for the livestock industry of the country. Not so long ago we had a debate on a private member’s motion. From that side of the House there then came a very sensible plea. Unfortunately the hon. member for Colesberg, who made the plea, is not listening at the moment but nonetheless I want to pay tribute to him for following what we have done and have been asking for for all these years. That is a reduction in interest rates. The hon. the Minister took up his usual attitude which is that this is impossible and that is impracticable and he washes his hands of this. He is sort of an agricultural Pontius Pilate nowadays when it comes to any problem that is thrown into his lap. The hon. the Minister said: “Ja, dit is nie slegs die boer, die man wat in moeilike omstandighede en onder droogtetoestande verkeer, wat subsidies kry nie. Daar is ook die boer wat onder baie beter omstandighede lenings kry. Dit is dus nie so maklik om te sê dat ons die boere se rente op hulle verbande of waarop ook al, kan subsidieer nie.” That is what the hon. the Minister said, and he also said similar things in the past. What does the Government want? They say, and the Minister has used words to this effect in the past, that if we have less farmers on the land they will be more prosperous than a large number of farmers.

In other words, if you have uneconomic units, you must eliminate them and somebody must buy them up. But somebody must buy them up. Under this Government, with this tremendous burden of debt and the interest rates, how can people put money into agriculture as an investment at the present rate of profitability? It is interesting that, although this Minister says it is not easy to subsidize interest rates, our country to-day is booming and capital is coming in from overseas, indeed we have too much money and we have inflation in the country, but the hon. gentleman says it is very difficult to subsidize interest rates. Let us compare this to the actions of the United Party government in 1934 when we pegged the rate of agricultural bonds at 5 per cent, and of that the farmer paid 3½per cent and the government paid 1½ per cent. In those days the country was almost financially down on its knees, after the United Party had taken over from a Nationalist government that had nearly broken our country because of its stubbornness in refusing to leave the gold standard when other countries did. The country was almost bankrupt. But at that time the United Party government found the money, although it was certainly not easy, to help the farmers to the tune of 1½ per cent on their agricultural bonds. But this Government does not assist in that way, despite the fact that it complains there is too much money in the country.

I want to come back to this question of the marketing of beef. The hon. gentleman who moved this motion made one or two little hints at the end, and I think this is significant because he is, or was, a member of the Meat Board. It is significant that this hon. member should come with a motion like this. No doubt he is going to get some sort of reaction from the Minister. He said there have got to be marketing changes, but then he stopped. He gave us no indication whatever of what should be done, although the hon. member for East London (City) asked him what the marketing changes were going to be.

I did not have time.

Now he will never have time until after the Minister has spoken. He also said one other very interesting thing—I think he just sort of let it slip out, I think he could not have been thinking too much. He did not use the words, “We must have a long-term price determination”, but he rather hinted that what we should have is something long-term. I find that very interesting too, after all these years. I remember how this Minister has shot this side of the House down for advocating anything so stupid as long-term price determination when it comes to beef, where your production cycle is a three-year or four-year production cycle. Apparently he felt we were very stupid when we advocated that. The hon. member did not go as far as that, but he hinted at it; he hinted we should have something a little bit longer than we have at the moment.

The hon. member hinted too that we should have some other form of price guarantee for the producer of meat which is going into the controlled area. I find these hints very interesting and I am certain the Minister is going to tell us what is in his mind as far as these points are concerned. May I say I do not quarrel unduly with the hon. gentleman’s idea that this matter should be investigated. One hopes that if a commission is appointed to go into this matter it will not take years and years and years as so many of these commissions have taken in the past to bring out a report, and one also hopes that the hon. the Minister will not sit on the report for about a year before he does anything about it but that he will come to some decision about it fairly quickly.

There are many things very wrong with the marketing of meat at the moment and there is no doubt about it that the ordinary farmer who is not a tremendously big producer—and I am now talking about the controlled areas—of sheep or cattle, cannot send regularly enough to the controlled areas. He can only send at very irregular intervals. If he sends regularly at weekly intervals or at fortnightly intervals, as a speculator can do, then he catches the bad markets but he also catches the good markets. But almost every time a producer—who sends very infrequently—sends to a controlled market then there is always something wrong with the price at the other end; he does not hit the jackpot. It is obvious there is something very wrong. There is just one point in this regard that I want to bring to the Minister’s attention. The control system has obvious advantages, namely centralized slaughtering, and so on and so forth, but one of the side-effects of introducing this system in the country has been that it is an obvious point for control, not merely of the meat trade as such, but it also results in control by organizations of the price structure within that meat trade. I make bold to say the meat trade in this country is getting more and more into the hands of the wholesale organizations which are operating in the controlled areas. In many instances the small retail butcher cannot afford to employ a blockman, he has to employ himself as block-man, or he cannot afford the time to go to the auction. Now, although it might appear that there is competition at those auctions, in effect, especially at the smaller controlled markets, the competition is very limited indeed, and it is particularly limited if the wholesaler is also financing the small retail butcher, as does happen. There are indeed problems about marketing. My time is very limited and there is a whole number of other problems I should have liked to have mentioned. Nevertheless, I hope the hon. the Minister, if he is going to have any investigation at all, will bear these few points I have raised in mind.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Karas on the way in which he put his case in this House here to-day in regard to that very important industry, our animal husbandry, and the production side of that industry. I am sorry I cannot say the same in respect of a few hon. members opposite, particularly not the hon. member for South Coast. I think the hon. member’s contribution after so many years of experience in this House, should really have been a little better than it in fact was.

The hon. member put a few questions to me, and the first one, which did not really have much bearing on the industry as such, was whether I was in favour of having a good, strong farming community on the platteland. I do not think I need even reply to the question. I think that during all the years I have been Minister of Agriculture, with all the steps which have been taken in difficult times, sometimes under the most difficult drought conditions, the Government has with its auxiliary measures proved to our farmers that its policy is to keep as many of them on the platteland as possible. I do not think it is even necessary for me to give the hon. member for South Coast that assurance. He is aware of all that has been done, even under the most difficult of circumstances, to enable the farmer to carry on his occupation. Nevertheless, he asked whether the Minister was serious about maintaining a strong, economically sound farming community and keeping as many people as possible on the platteland. As I have said, I do not think it is necessary for me to reply to that.

The hon. member for East London (City) also made a few statements and levelled a few accusations to which I shall merely refer in passing. He stated that in the past the United Party had suggested a great many plans and schemes which this Government subsequently accepted. The hon. member for South Coast referred to one of these plans when he spoke about the sugar cane tips in Natal which were going to waste and which could be fed to animals. It seems to me the hon. member has a bee in his bonnet lately about a so-called fodder bank. Now I want to put a certain very specific question to him. For the past seven to eight years very dry conditions have been prevailing in large areas of our country. This drought is one of the most prolonged we have ever had. The hon. member is advocating a fodder bank. Now, when during the past period of drought in South Africa was there an occasion when farmers wanted to obtain fodder and could not do so? In other words, what the member is proposing, is already available here; during times of drought the fodder is available here. The roughage is not always fodder which can be used under all circumstances, but when it must be used during times of drought in order to keep stock alive, the Government has on each occasion rendered assistance in making that fodder available to the producer. In addition the Government has always assisted in the organization necessary to get the fodder there. I am not talking now about mealies and other fodder which is always available. The hon. member is repeatedly levelling the accusation that this Government takes no interest in the establishment of a fodder bank. I say again: During the past eight years, when drought prevailed in most parts of our country and there was a greater demand for fodder than usual, there has never been a shortage of fodder for our agriculture.

Not even lucerne?

But the hon. member knows that during the past eight or nine years almost no lucerne has been imported. The total production of lucerne is consumed here. When should the fodder bank have been built up? Surely it is a simple situation. It is very easy to stand up here and make all kinds of gestures and accusations. Let us take the past number of years when the farmers in this country had to carry on under exceptionally difficult circumstances, particularly as far as their animal husbandry was concerned, and I am prepared to say, notwithstanding what the hon. member said about reducing the rate of interest, that never in the past has any Government made such attempts as this one has made during the past seven to eight years, in times such as these, to maintain and to protect our livestock. And these steps are still being taken to-day. We need not accept that statement on its face value, we can look at the figures, we can look at our livestock which was conserved under these difficult circumstances. Throughout this drought the number of sheep in South Africa has increased. It did not decrease. The number of cattle also remained constant, they did not become less. The only reason why this could be done was that the Government made exceptional attempts to conserve the stock during the drought periods.

It remained constant in good years as well.

The hon. member for East London (City) has said. “Look what is happening in Australia and New Zealand”. He cannot try to compare us with a country like Australia. He cannot compare us with Australia when it comes to the amount of beef and mutton which they produce and export there. We cannot say “South Africa ought to do the same”. Does the hon. member think that a country like South Africa with the potential it has in respect of stock production can in any way compete with a country which has an export market like the one Australia has? We cannot even compete, with our own production and our own price, with the imported product. It is of no avail drawing comparisons with countries with which we cannot be compared.

This motion confines us to-day to a very important industry, probably one of the most important agricultural industries in South Africa. Now when such a motion was being discussed, one would have expected a different kind of contribution than the one we received from that side. As the hon. member was quite right in saying, the animal husbandry industry in South Africa is being practiced on 85 per cent of our land. Our investment in our animal husbandry industry is tremendous. It is calculated that more than R1,000 million has been invested in livestock alone in South Africa, and if we add to that the amount of money which has been invested in making facilities available for water, drinking places, and fencing, as well as the investment in land, then we can see how many thousands of millions of rand are involved in this matter. That is why it is of course of great importance that we should take special protective measures on behalf of our livestock industry. It is one of our country’s basic industries and this is the only one which can be practised in such a large area of our country. If one wants to protect and promote this industry, then one must divide it up into various categories. In the first place there is the contribution which the farmer must make to this industry, and we must then ask ourselves what he can expect from the State in order to give specific encouragement to an industry such as this. In passing the hon. member mentioned one step which could be taken. The hon. member for Albany accused me of having stated in the past that we cannot have a long-term price in respect of our meat production. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said. I said that I could not accept the long-term price policy which the United Party was advocating. Our entire Marketing Act is adjusted to a long-term price policy. That is what I said. I now want to ask the hon. member, if a long-term price policy means, as they have stated in the past, an announcement of a price which will be valid for the next four to five years, what this would mean to the meat industry? I have been Minister of this portfolio for ten years, and during this period the floor price of beef has increased by 100 per cent. If 1 had announced ten years ago that the price which was then being paid should remain constant for the next five years—which is a long-term policy, as hon. members of the opposite side want—then the farmers would in many cases have received less for their meat in terms of the price determination of the Marketing Act. I want to repeat that the Marketing Act in fact implies a long-term price determination, and not a rapid up and down fluctuation. Such a long-term price policy as the United Party advocates is unpractical and undesirable.

Let us now consider the stock industry in its entirety. What is of fundamental importance in the livestock industry? It is important that the breeding of our stock should be as well organized as possible, that is the quality of the animals should be as high as possible, and that the fecundity, i.e. the calf and lamb percentages, should be as high as possible. The second important aspect is that our management must be as sound as possible, as well as rotation grazing, supplementary feeding, conditioning, the care and protection of our animals and the degree to which we can cope with wintering problems. The third important aspect is the health of our animals. This includes the combating and prevention of diseases as well as immunization. The fourth very important aspect, which determines the economy of the industry, is the marketing system. In the few minutes at my disposal I want to mention what the State has done to encourage this industry and to help this industry. In the first instance there are the milk recording schemes, our slaughter cattle performance schemes, and the fact that one-third of the price of scales which are installed on farms is subsidized by the state to an amount of R400. There is also a State nominated bull scheme, our national meat performance scheme, a orogeny testing scheme, our pig record scheme, boar performance testing schemes, pig progeny testing schemes and the veld reclamation scheme. In addition there are various committees which maintain liaison with livestock industry in the field of research. There are also advisory committees which maintain liaison with the Department. In addition there are registered research projects in connection with cattle breeding, which include feeding, etc. At the moment there are 186 similar research projects in process which are being undertaken by the Department. The number of experimental farms on which research is being undertaken on animal husbandry projects is thirty. The most important aspect of animal husbandry which we are going into there is feeding and meat production, precisely what hon. members have asked for. I also want to refer briefly to the combating of diseases. At Onderstepoort alone during the period 1967-’68 the following vaccines for stock diseases were manufactured, 3.8 million doses for bovine parabotulism, 8.7 million doses for anthrax, 3.8 million doses for black quarter, 17,000 doses of wart vaccine, 707,000 doses for undulant fever, 1.24 million doses for lumpy skin disease—which was only brought under control a few years ago—62,000 doses for heart water, and many others besides. This large number of doses, i.e. 19.4 million, is being manufactured by the State at Onderstepoort and is being made available at a low price to the producer and the farmer.

Where are the veterinary surgeons to help with the cattle diseases?

What can we say about veterinary surgeons?

What about them?

We have 17 regional diagnostic centres and four artificial insemination stations, which receive a subsidy of R25,000 from the State. There are 40 veterinary surgeon posts at Onderstepoort, of which 32 are filled. In the field services there are 87, of which 74 are filled. I am mentioning these things to hon. members in order to show them that this enormous amount of research being undertaken, the vaccine preparation being undertaken, this cattle disease control and prevention which is being applied, is all being done by the State in order to place our cattle industry on the best basis. Reference was also made a moment ago to the uneconomical production of animals. Let us now consider this from the farmer’s point of view. We all know that the return on cattle farming with a calving percentage of 80 is 1½ times greater than with a calving percentage of 50. Do you know what the average calving percentage of our cattle in South Africa is? It is 50 per cent. There are many farmers who achieve a calving percentage of between 70 and 80, which means that there are a large number of farmers who only achieve a calving percentage of 30 and less. Let us discuss this matter and let us publicize these particulars and this genetic breeding policy or programme so that our farmers can pay more attention to it. The hon. member referred to the number of heifers which were being slaughtered. Is it such a great sin if female animals in the cattle industry are slaughtered if there are enough for breeding purposes? Why does the hon. member not ask us to hold back all these sows which are being slaughtered as well? The hon. member can work out for himself what a tremendous number of pigs will be able to breed in a few month’s time if all the sows which have to be slaughtered are held back [Interjections]. It is the same principle. If there are sufficient breeding animals to build up the stocks, why should some of the female animals not be slaughtered? If there are female animals of a poorer quality, and there are others which are better for breeding purposes, why not? The hon. member for East London (City) is shaking his head. I accept that the hon. member is, after all, a good sheep farmer, but let me now ask the hon. member whether he keeps all his yearling ewes for breeding purposes.

No, but most …

Why does the hon. member not keep them all for breeding purposes? He does not keep them all for breeding purposes for the simple reason that there is poor quality among them which he is not prepared to reintroduce into his flock. If that hon. member does not want to reintroduce them into his flock, why should another farmer buy them to farm with? [Interjection]. I am no advocate of our slaughtering all our female animals; I do not want to imply that at all, but on the other hand I also want to say that there is no way in which I can introduce a scheme to prevent a farmer from not making his female animals, which he does not need, available for slaughter. After all, that is obvious.

However, I do not want to elaborate too much on the production side. I would like to say a few words about the marketing of our meat. I expected hon. members to elaborate on this topic to a greater extent, particularly after what the hon. member for Karas had to say about it. The hon. member said that I was waiting for a motion in which the appointment of a committee to investigate the marketing scheme of our meat was requested. Let me put it to the hon. member that we have a South African Agricultural Union which accepts our present scheme, and a Board which implements that scheme. The hon. member need not be afraid that the Minister is not aware of this; he need not be afraid that the Minister, because of his age, will forget, because the Minister thinks further ahead than the hon. member ever does. As Minister I went to the Board and told them that the time had come when they should realize that our method of meat marketing in South Africa was changing. The time had come when the supply and demand of meat to the consumer was assuming a completely different pattern from that of the past. The Committee which the hon. member advocated was appointed last year already on my insistence. It was appointed to consider, in conjunction with the Meat Board and the Marketing Council, the effect of this scheme on quite a number of matters.

Does he not know that?

The hon. member did not ask for this commission, as hon. members are interpreting it. I shall tell you what he asked for. I also listened to what he said. That committee, in conjunction with the Meat Board, gave attention to the way the scheme was operating. The problems which are arising to-day are of course that in the meantime, with the provision and methods of distribution of meat, the Meat Board has gradually gained the impression that the old scheme cannot be adjusted to present methods. They began to make exceptions to the scheme themselves. They themselves began to allow meat to be slaughtered in other areas and brought into the controlled areas in carcase form. They went further and occasionally considered allowing meat on the hoof, a certain percentage of animals on the hoof, to be sold on controlled markets. If this is allowed and it is successful, in this sense that meat on the hoof does better on the controlled market—so that one can bring in a percentage thereof, for if 10 per cent is a success, 20 per cent will be a greater success—then the basis of the whole scheme will have been undermined. On that basis I told the Board that it was time they began to ascertain whether this scheme of auctioning on the hook in controlled areas is still adapted to modern circumstances, not only as regards marketing, but also in the light of modern circumstances concerning the provision of abattoirs, which on the one hand has to be done by local authorities or, as the commission recommended, could possibly be provided by private initiative. If a system should come into existence in South Africa by means of which private initiative could be allowed to control abattoirs, whether co-operative or otherwise, then this system of single channel marketing and the system of auctioning on the hoof in controlled areas cannot be complied with, because then the foundation of one’s market and one’s auctioning system has been removed. Surely that is obvious. That is why I have on various occasions said to the Board that it is high time we took a look at the direction in which our meat industry is moving and at these expensive facilities which have to be provided. The Board was in fact prepared to do so. Perhaps the circumstances were such that the Board, until very recently, did not yet realize in which direction this scheme was really moving. What the hon. member is now asking is not an investigation into the scheme as such but that we should under the circumstances appoint a committee or commission to see what adjustments have to be made in order to give effect to this new modern direction. The hon. member, I am certain, is asking this precisely because the committee which I appointed did in fact bring to their attention that this was the situation in the meat industry.

I am glad that you have told him what he meant.

In other words, the accusation which was made by the hon. member here, was made far too late. I thought about it last year already, before the hon. member could think about it. Even now he has not thought about it yet. The only member who still tried to think about it, was the hon. member for Albany; he did think a little way along those lines, but the hon. member for South Coast has not yet thought of it—he is still barking up the wrong tree! In regard to the creation of facilities, particularly abattoirs; in regard to the control which the abattoir commission must have over the creation of facilities; in regard to the erection of facilities which entail heavy expenses and which have up to now been undertaken by local authorities, I want to repeat that the local authority which exercises control in that area, still remains the best body to undertake the erection of those abattoirs. But with the uncertainty which has arisen as a result of the new methods of marketing, and the steps which inevitably have to be taken by the Meat Board to sell meat which comes from outside the controlled areas within those controlled areas, a situation is being created in South Africa where it is impossible for any local or private authority to make abattoir facilities available which comply with modern requirements. Such an authority cannot make the funds for such a purpose available if it does not have the assurance that those funds will be economically invested for the future. That is why I am in complete agreement with the hon. member for Karas. The time has now come—and I think that the time for that is in fact ripe already—for us to reconsider this entire system of meat marketing. In this regard I just want to state a few basic principles. In terms of our meat marketing system, as it exists at present, the basic principle of the scheme is that the Board should be able to eliminate the surplus from the market. This is a basic principle which has to be applied, so that the prices do not drop below the floor prices. This is a principle which we, for the protection of the producer, will have to retain in the scheme. The producer must enjoy that protection, so that he can be assured of a guaranteed price, by having the surplus removed from the market at all times. If that is not done, an impossible situation will be created. That principle will therefore have to be retained in any such scheme. This scheme, which is at present being applied, has worked well for a long time. It would probably also have worked well in the future if we had not made this progress in the selling pattern or the method of selling our meat, or if such progress had not been made with the refrigeration of meat for example. If it had not been for that progress, the present scheme would probably have remained an ideal one for the producer for a very long time, even though there were people who had reservations about it, and even though it is a scheme which can sometimes be expensive. But it does not help us to close our eyes to development, or to the problems which that development entails for our present scheme. That is why I agree with the hon. member for Karas that such a commission is absolutely essential. The commission will have to consider what could be done with the present scheme in order to protect the producer in future, and how to adapt the present method of our meat marketing to modern requirements, as far as supply and demand are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, in view of what the Minister said and the assurance he gave us, firstly, in regard to the production aspect of animal husbandry, secondly, in respect of the price aspect in that regard and, thirdly, in respect of marketing, I am prepared to withdraw my motion at this stage.

The hon. member may not withdraw his motion unless the mover of the amendment agrees to its being done. Is the hon. member for South Coast prepared to do so?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall do so, but with very great regret and reluctance.

With leave, amendment and motion withdrawn.