I have to announce that the Parliamentary Building of the Parliament of the Cape Colony, which now forms the original and most historical part of the Parliamentary Building of the Republic of South Africa, was festively inaugurated 100 years ago today on 15 May 1885.

To commemorate this occasion the three Houses will suspend business on Wednesday, 22 May, at 17h30 for a ceremony starting at 17h45 in the Gallery Hall and to which all members of Parliament have been invited.

I will open a display in connection with this occasion in the Gallery Hall, unveil a commemorative plaque and announce the publication of a brochure on the Parliamentary Building.

*A series of four stamps in connection with Parliament, specially issued for this occasion, will be presented to the State President and to me by the Minister of Communications.

The Minister of Finance will then present coins specially minted for this occasion and imprinted with the facade of the Parliamentary Building to the State President and to me.

The Minister of Communications will then present the artist’s drawings of the above-mentioned stamps to me for display in the Gallery Hall.

Models of the obverse and reverse sides of the coins, mounted with two coins on either side, will be presented to me by the Minister of Finance for safekeeping in the Parliamentary Building.

†The ceremony will be concluded in front of the Parliamentary Building with the National Salute by the Cape Town Rifles (Dukes) and the singing of The Call of South Africa, to the accompaniment of the band of the Dukes.

as Chairman, presented the Fifth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Home Affairs and National Education, relative to the Public Service Laws Amendment Bill [No 81—85 (GA)], as follows:

A E NOTHNAGEL,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

15 May 1985.

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Chairman, at the outset allow me to state that we in these benches cannot pretend to be enthusiastic about the division of agriculture into own affairs and general affairs. Perhaps the most charitable thing that we can say is that it has at least served to bring the hon the Minister back into an executive position in agriculture.

Order! I request hon members to converse more quietly.

Mr Chairman, may I take advantage of the interruption to ask for the privilege of the half-hour?

We have a high regard for the hon the Minister. He is a warm and friendly man with whom we have had good and constructive dealings in the past and we wish him well in his new department. We also extend the same good wishes to all the officials in his department.

It is a great pity that under the new dispensation agriculture has been divided along racial lines. Agriculture is a brotherhood which binds men together regardless of race, religion or language. In South Africa our farmers share a common challenge to feed and clothe our nation. The protection of our common natural resources, and their maintenance in a viable and productive state for future generations, is our most important common responsibility. We must ask ourselves if by fragmenting our forces in this way the future of agriculture is best served. We in these benches look forward to the day when all South Africans who love the soil and who are proud of their association with it can put their shoulders to the same wheel regardless of the colour of their skin. I know that this matter falls more within the province of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning than within that of this hon Minister and therefore I will simply put our attitude on record and leave the matter there.

On a more practical level, let me say that it is difficult in agriculture to determine just where our own affairs end and general affairs begin. Let us take the maize industry as an example. As I understand it, the marketing of agricultural produce is a general affair and the approval of the maize price is a function of the hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics. Yet, on Monday the SABC, in its parliamentary commentary, was speculating that the troubles in the maize industry would be given much attention in this particular debate. It is true that the vast majority of maize farmers who produce a surplus of maize for marketing in this country are Whites. So, it does seem as though it could be argued that the marketing of maize is an own affair. However, my colleague from Pietermaritzburg South will be dealing with this matter in greater detail later in this debate.

One of the main problems facing any group in this country which wishes to make a contribution to agriculture is the problem related to finance. The problem can be very simple stated. The amount of capital which is required today to set up and maintain a viable farming enterprise is enormous. It has been calculated that on average some R400 000 is needed by an aspirant fanner who wishes to enter the profession. Given the notoriously low returns on agricultural investments, the high interest rates currently applicable and the high-risk nature of agriculture, it is not surprising that agriculture today is virtually a closed book. Unless one is lucky enough to inherit property or capital, one has little or no hope of ever joining the ranks of our land-owning farming community. Our farming community has halved over the past 25 years and it is predicted that it will halve again during the next 25 years. The economy of scale coupled with inflation apparently makes this process inevitable. Illis is not to say however, that new recruits, with new skills and new knowledge, cannot be brought into the industry.

This problem has long been a source of concern to our farming community and recently the SA Agricultural Union has brought out two excellent reports in which an in-depth study of the financial position of South African farmers has been made. In the first report the problems relating to the financial position of farmers in general are studied, whereas in the second report the findings are given of a detailed investigation of the financial obstacles facing young farmers. Taken together, these reports make a real contribution towards our understanding of these problems and I would congratulate the SA Agricultural Union on their initiative in producing these reports.

A number of important facts are revealed. Firstly, we find that the youngest farmers are also those most heavily in debt. This is to be expected, but when we find, for example, that of all the farmers in the Transvaal under the age of 35 years fully 50% are in a critical financial position with debt-to-asset ratios exceeding 30%, we have real cause to feel concerned.

The second statistic which gives cause for concern is that whereas outside of the farming population 45% of White males fall into the population group of 35 years and younger, in farming circles only 18% of farmers are in this group. Farmers are therefore mainly middle-aged or elderly, and the profession is being deprived of the vigour and initiative which is associated with youth.

This state of affairs can be attributed either to an unwillingness on the part of young farmers to enter the profession for fear of burdening themselves with a millstone of debt around their necks for the rest of their fives, or else because they would like to farm but the financial resources are just not available.

Unfortunately there are no statistics available to give us an indication of how many young people there are who would like to make a career out of agriculture, although one does hear of cases where farmers advertise for young managers and are flooded with scores of requests from aspirant farmers who see the job of a farm manager as next best to farming on their own account.

What we do know is that of those farmers who during the past five years have attempted to enter the farming profession by means of raising loans, the majority, in fact 70%, are under the age of 40 years. These aspirant farmers are well educated with 74% having a matriculation certificate or higher qualification, and have at least some assets of their own. The average potential farmer has some R128 000 at his disposal. Whereas this might appear a fairly significant amount of capital, when set against the minimum amount of R400 000 mentioned earlier, it does fall far short of the mark.

Of young farmers who make application for assistance through the various channels open to them in this country it is interesting to note that, on average, only a quarter of those applicants who seek long-term loans are successful. Of the successful applicants some 20% will have received aid from the Land Bank, 6% from the Agricultural Credit Board, 30% from commercial banks, 53% from farm owners and 30% from private sources outside of agriculture. This means that Government institutions provide only some 26% of aid required by young aspirant farmers.

The main reason for declining financial aid is lack of security, and 70% of all young farmers are turned away or have aid refused for this reason.

The problem of establishing young farmers on the land is not unique to South Africa. In countries such as Australia, Canada and Zimbabwe specific schemes are available to young farmers. We in South Africa have no such scheme. Perhaps the closest we have come to it was the border farmer scheme which was an attempt to encourage White farmers to settle on our depopulated far northern borders. This scheme, for a number of reasons which do not concern us here, was not a success.

The SA Agricultural Union has drawn up a detailed scheme which it is urging the Government to consider, and we in these benches would support this effort by the SAAU. We should, however, like to stress the following points.

We believe that far more attention should be given to encouraging the part-time farmer. For too long in this country the part-time farmer has been given the cold shoulder by both organized agriculture and the State. While it is true that some part-time farmers might be wealthy businessmen who farm as a hobby, this does not mean that they cannot make a valuable contribution to agriculture. This should not allow us—this is more important—to be blinded to the potential which part-time farming offers to young aspirant farmers to build up capital, livestock, implements and, most important of all, invaluable experience.

We believe that part-time farming could be one of the most important stepping-stones on the path of a young farmer leading to full-time farming status. It should not be beyond the ability of the Land Bank, for example, to ascertain whether or not an applicant who is not going to be a full-time farmer is a wealthy businessman with enough assets of his own, or whether he is a young person who needs to work away from the farm in order to supplement his income while he builds up his assets. Furthermore, we believe that the possibilities of the quitrent system which operated so successfully in this country many years ago have not been fully explored. Perhaps a modernized and modified quitrent system could be offered as a supplementary alternative to the loan scheme proposed by the SAAU. It could certainly be applied to State-owned land which is being made available to the public. We in these benches are pleased that after many years of neglect this important aspect of our agricultural scene is at last receiving attention.

In the few minutes left to me I would like to raise an entirely unrelated matter which is of great concern to farmers in the Eastern Cape and indeed to South Africa. I refer now to the prickly question of jointed cactus. This problem is quite literally a “turksvy” for all of us. It is one of our most troublesome and expensive weeds. Conventional methods of control using weed-killers have not proved as effective as was originally hoped. Much important work is constantly being done in the field of biological control and there has been excellent co-operation between the Department of Agricultural Technical Services’ research station at Uitenhage and at the University of Rhodes in Grahamstown in this regard and much valuable work has been done. It appears, however, that research must now move into the field of plant pathology. Several pathogenic fungi have been isolated in the Americas, which hold out great promise for further biological control. The problem is, however, that no suitable laboratory facilities exist in this country. Quarantine facilities which are essential for this kind of work are either unavailable or unsuitable. Research work in this most promising field has therefore come to an abrupt end.

In closing, I would like to appeal to the hon the Minister to investigate the possibility of providing suitable quarantine facilities to ensure that this work can proceed. These facilities would be cheap at the price if better control measures for this expensive pest can be found.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the congratulations extended by the hon member for Albany to the hon the Minister. On behalf of this side of the House I wish him the very best of luck with the very important portfolio that has been entrusted to his care. We know that he was previously attached to the Department of Agriculture as Deputy Minister and has already made his mark. We know that in him we have a good Minister.

I should also like to congratulate Dr Aggenbach sincerely on his appointment as head of the department and wish him and his staff everything of the best for the years ahead.

The hon member for Albany was saying he was not at all enthusiastic about the own affairs aspect as far as agriculture was concerned. The Government has a certain policy according to which it governs the country. It is based on own affairs and affairs of communal concern. The hon member must realize that approximately 90% of South African farmers are White. I therefore think that it is justifiable to say that the matter could in fact be an own affair. On this side of the House we believe in the right to self-determination for our White farmers as well. [Interjections.]

In terms of section 14, read in conjunction with Schedule 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa the following have been singled out as own affairs: Agriculture, which includes the following, and I should like to focus on it here today so that we know exactly how important this department is: Agricultural development services which includes research, advisory services and extension, training at agricultural colleges and financial and other assistance to farmers or prospective farmers or for the promotion of agriculture. It also includes water supply which comprises the following: Irrigation schemes, drilling for water for agricultural and local government purposes, as well as the subsidizing of drilling work and waterworks for agricultural and local government purposes and financial assistance in relation to water works damaged by flood. These above-mentioned own functions are brought together in one department within the framework of the Administration for White own affairs.

In terms of the particulars contained in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 of the Constitution, agricultural development services include the following aspects: Research, advisory services and extension. Seen in broad terms, training at agricultural colleges as well as financial and other assistance to farmers, to which reference is made in subparagraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 of the Constitution, is also aimed at the development of agriculture. Over and above that, the functions in regard to irrigation schemes, drilling for water and the subsidization of drilling work and water works for agricultural purposes, to which reference is made in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 are similarly aimed at the development of agriculture. For this reason the primary aim of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply is therefore not only directed at agricultural development, but also at the limited provision of water for local government purposes.

Seen in the light of above-mentioned particulars, the whole purpose of the department could therefore be defined as follows: To develop agriculture and to exploit and finance specific water sources for local government purposes. For the purpose of achieving this goal the following primary functions have to be carried out: The department establishes overall co-ordination and provides technical services, promotes animal production, the production of agronomic crops as well as the production of horticultural crops and the establishment of farming practices aimed at optimum agricultural production and—very important—the conservation of resources as well; undertakes financial assistance, disseminates information and provides administrative services.

The basic principles upon which healthy agricultural development is founded are, in my opinion, very important. To be able to aspire to or realise the principle of optimal agricultural development the process has to be based on two firmly distinguishable pillars, the optimal utilization of agricultural resources and orderly marketing and price stabilization measures.

As far as the optimal utilization of agricultural resources is concerned, there are three simple but basic requirements which an optimum utilization system has to meet. In the first place agricultural production has to take place in harmony with the natural environmental factors. Every agricultural region in the world has control over a given inherent agricultural potential. Inherent agricultural potential means the agricultural or production possibilities that emerge from the joint and separate influences of the natural environmental factors of which topography, temperature, rainfall, wind, soil and vegetation are the most important. These factors determine how well a specific crop will fare in a particular spot.

A second requirement which an optimum utilization system has to meet is that agricultural production may not solely take place at the expense of agricultural resources. The fact that the practising of a particular branch of the industry is in harmony with the environmental factors is no guarantee that the inherent production capacity of a resource is not being overtaxed and will be destroyed as a consequence.

Thirdly, agricultural production should have an economic basis. Optimal systems of utilization should, amongst other things make provision for the farmer to be able to make a decent living on his farm. The size of the farm is therefore of primary importance within the framework of the other principles. A unit which is too small cannot be utilized optimally.

The said three factors are inseparable from each other and form the cornerstone of sound farming and, as a consequence, of a sound agricultural economy.

Fundamental to the optimal utilization of agricultural resources is the fact that the structure in agriculture should be such that it promotes the most efficient utilization of resources. From the point of view of the maximum utilization of available resources or inputs which, in the nature of things, are always in short supply, research worldwide indicates that farmers should be neither too small nor too large. A medium-sized unit should, given good management and sufficient business capital, satisfy both aims, that of maximum effectiveness and the optimal output per hectare.

Due to differences in management, amongst other things, however, a wide range of farm sizes will always co-exist in a free economy which will be managed by farmers with an equally wide spectrum of management potential and aims. The available information, however, indicates that from an effectiveness point of view extremely small and extremely large farming units are not in the interests of agriculture as such, nor of the rural areas and the country as a whole. This will have to be looked into because it is a condition which does, in fact, exist in South Africa.

The second pillar I mentioned was orderly marketing and price stabilization measures. The uncertain and unpredictable factors in agricultural production and overseas marketing possibilities renders a measure of State intervention, particularly in the marketing process and price stability, unavoidable. In the absence of measure in regard to this, these factors would have resulted in considerable instability in the prices and in the extent of the production of various important agricultural products. The principle of State intervention and assistance in agricultural undertakings is also a worldwide phenomenon, also with a view to the importance of the agriculture in the economy of a country and the vicissitudes of the conditions in regard to production and marketing, which amongst other things also hinder planning. In the RSA this State involvement takes place in accordance with the Marketing Act which was placed on the Statute Books as far back as 1937.

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

Mr Chairman, I rise to give the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon Whip for giving me the opportunity to complete my speech.

Continued progress in regard to optimal agricultural development is only possible if it is backed up by successes determined by agricultural research and an efficient guidance service so that one can ensure that the latest technology is being used. In this regard, however, agricultural financing plays a decisive role because it is of equally great importance to give assistance to fanners in times of natural disasters and setbacks in farming, also in regard to the creation of infrastructures for the advancement of effective marketing. It is proof of the important job and function of this department.

There are also other factors that I think play an important part in South African agriculture. I want to classify these factors as controllable and uncontrollable factors. The greatest problem in agriculture is the uncontrollable factors that affect its position. Now it is also these uncontrollable factors that make one regard agriculture as a greater risk than most other sectors of the economy. These factors should be duly considered by farmers when deciding on how controllable factors should be handled in order to adapt in the best way to the environment and therefore to the uncontrollable factors as well.

As a result of unpredictable climatic conditions the farmer can seldom maintain optimal production. He is also sometimes in a relatively weak bargaining position because frequently he is subjected to a fluctuation in prices on the input as well as the output side. Cost increases in agriculture appear to be higher than in other sectors. The price of fertilizer has recently risen by 20% and that of fuel for agriculture by 30%. Further increases in regard to the price of tractors, chemicals, cattle fodder and so forth are also expected. At present agriculture is not at all in a position to absorb these increases, and consequently the cost increases will contribute to a further weakening of the financial position of farmers.

Farmers should employ their bargaining power by way of the existing agricultural organizations to keep their input costs as low as possible. Farmers can do very little about the drought of the past three years, as it consistently hit them fairly late in the production season. However, it caused an increase in the debt burden—and the short-term debt burden in particular—because considerable production costs had been incurred by then.

The Jacobs report of 1979 did not recommend a particular return on the farmer’s capital investment but was of the opinion that farmers are entitled to a reasonable management remuneration. With the present high interest rates, large carry-over debts and previous credit granted on the basis of credit-worthiness, rather than the ability to repay, few farmers, however, can at present meet their interest commitments. There was also a shortage of incentive measures in the good years motivating farmers to build up a reserve for the poor or lean years. Income tax measures encouraged farmers to purchase capital goods instead of accumulating a reserve fund for the lean years.

As far as controllable factors are concerned, knowledge and physical as well as financial planning are the most important means agriculture can employ to best utilize the controllable factors. To reduce his risk factors the farmer should be encouraged to diversify. That could not only improve the cash-flow, but could also lead to the better utilization of fixed costs. Through soil analyses and the resulting soil grading, the optimal production of the correct crops can be determined and pursued, rather than the maximum production, as was propagated by farmers during the good years. Farmers were too quick to cultivate crops on marginal land and were given short-term credit, thus increasing the risk factors.

Financial planning is therefore what it is all about. Financial management skills will be demanded of the farmers to an increasing extent. Long, medium and short-term planning will have to take place and funds will have to be provided accordingly. By doing all of the production and capital business on overdraft the farmer could land in a liquidity crisis not only in a poor year but even in a good year as well. The farmer will have to draw up adequate cash flow budgets and adapt his expenditure to it.

Operations analyses could identify profitable operations, while non-profitable operations could be eliminated. In this way the farmer could increase his profitability. By the same token the farmer should also seriously consider separating his business and private accounts. In this way greater financial discipline can be practised on both levels. Quite a wide range of costs could be obviated by the effective management of provisions. It is in fact, an aspect which is receiving attention from all sectors of the economy.

A discount on the early purchases of fertilizer looks very attractive to farmers. However the disadvantage of high interest rates could outweigh the beneficial effect of the discount if the fertilizer has to be stored for a long time. A certain level of personal funds is, however necessary if the farmer is to maintain his existing level of production. Short-term credit and debt burden ratio problems are exprienced as a result of a lack of personal funds. In time farmers will no longer be able to maintain the existing production capacities and their production and income-generating ability will suffer.

It appears that financial planning and discipline will have to be the watchword of the farmer in the future. Farmers will have to get used to credit that is expensive and in short supply, and as a consequence the available financing will have to be employed more judiciously. It is therefore a question of the most profitable utilization of credit that is in short supply and I therefore want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon the Minister and this department for all their financial assistance during the past few very difficult years and for the expeditious way in which applications were handled. [Interjections.]

I also want to pay tribute to the farmers of South Africa for the wonderful way in which they have braved the droughts of the past years. It is evidence of faith, heroism and persistency.

Mr Chairman, allow me to associate myself right at the outset with the hon members for Albany and Ladybrand by congratulating the hon the Minister on his appointment to this new post of Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply, as well as Dr Aggenbach and his staff on their new positions. I have known the hon the Minister personally for longer than a few months and I wish him success with a reasonably important but exceptionally difficult job.

The hon member for Albany devoted much of his speech to the position of young farmers, and I agree with him to a great extent. As far as the issue of part-time farmers is concerned, what the hon member said is true: For a long time the authorities failed to appreciate the role that the part-time farmer had to play and which he in fact does play in South African agriculture. We are, however, aware that a change in attitude has set in and I think the hon the Minister will confirm it once again.

If one takes a look at the rest of the world one sees that the part-time farmer definitely has an important role to play. I think it is particularly the case in a country such as South Africa with its changing climate and rainfall. The part-time farmer, however, could never replace the full-time farmer. Perhaps I am speaking from experience now, because I progressed from being a part-time farmer to being a full-time farmer.

As far as the hon member for Ladybrand is concerned I really do not intend entering into a constitutional debate with the hon member on his initial remarks about a division of agriculture between own affairs and so-called general affairs. Perhaps we should leave that for another debate.

I just want to make one remark: It is odd that the hon member should say that agricultural production research and agricultural financing should be an own affair, because 90% of the farmers in the country are Whites. One could then surely use the same argument in respect of marketing. Why is marketing not an own affair for agriculture too? What applies to the one should surely apply to the other as well.

I should like to refer briefly to the document that the hon Minister obtained for us. It deals with the national grazing strategy of his department. I think it is a very important document and one that should perhaps have seen the light of day a long time ago. We have made a thorough study of it and in my view no fault could be found with the strategy as it has been set out here.

Some time ago we also received a White Paper on agricultural policy. Unfortunately, while the ideals are commendable, their achievement in practice is not always a horse of the same colour.

In this particular document it states that it is important for such a strategy to succeed. General public and political support should be harnessed for the purpose of eliminating identified bottlenecks. One would like to agree with that.

However, I want to caution that I think this problem could best, and should, be solved by means of education if it is still necessary. Coercive measures should only be used in the most exceptional cases and in the cases of people who act wilfully, Experience has taught us that coercive measures are sometimes counterproductive in such a case.

If it is being said here in general terms that we are over-utilizing or misusing our grazing and are in fact exploiting it wastefully, then there would of course have been causes giving rise to this. We have recently found that the economic farming units have not grown smaller as a result of improved utilization of resources. On the contrary they have become increasingly larger in spite of improved agricultural methods. There are perhaps many reasons for this. However, it could be attributed specifically to the profit margins in the farming industry—particularly in the past decade—having dropped so considerably that a farming unit which a decade ago was an economic unit on which a man could make a decent living for himself and his family, is no longer so today. This is one reason. What we should not lose sight of, however, is that the standard of living expectations of all our people, including our farmers on the farms, has increased considerably in the past decade or more. We must remember, too, that the net income with which a farmer would perhaps have been satisfied three decades ago is today no longer sufficient to see one through according to present standards.

This problem is therefore not so simple. In fact it is a twofold one, the problem of rising standards of living and the problem of falling profit margins in agriculture. Perhaps this, too, has led to farms, and particularly our grazing land, being over exploited. However, I think it is essential that the authorities—as this document now indicates—will have to take drastic action because we cannot allow the most important resource for our cattle industry, our natural grazing lands, to be ruined. We only have it on loan so that we can leave it to posterity in a better condition that that in which we received it ourselves.

I want to refer briefly to the financial situation of our farmers. This is certainly something this department is faced with. The debates in this House of Assembly and all debates outside this House of Assembly—for the past three years I could almost say—reflected the deteriorating economic position of agriculture in South Africa. It is a fact that there are branches of agriculture in South Africa which are faring well and also others that are faring exceptionally poorly. This deteriorating situation of the financial position of the farmers we can no longer attribute to the drought conditions because it is simply no longer true.

It is a pity that recently, after certain disturbances in agriculture, the impression was created, particularly in the public media, that the agricultural industry—it was the old story once again—was an industry which received exceptional and perhaps undeserved assistance from the State. [Interjections.] On the contrary, I think we would perhaps be justified in beginning to ask: Is it, then, the standpoint in our country that our farmers are expected to subsidize the rest of the national economy out of their pockets by providing food at a price lower than the production costs of that food? If we take a look at the financial position of the farmers in South Africa—particularly those in the summer grain areas—we will see that they are in a desperate situation. In spite of the drastic increases in input costs during the past year for the summer grain industry in particular—and the hon member for Ladybrand has already referred to this—we have now, in the case of the maize industry, been given a price determination which I cannot help but call an arbitrary determination rather than a considered determination. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Barberton has spoken. His criticism was made in a very responsible way and I want to thank him for once again, as in the past, showing that he is sincerely committed to separating agriculture from party politics. I think the criticism he expressed will be dealt with later by the hon Minister in his speech.

This afternoon I should like to speak about agricultural credit or, as it is called, the Division of Financial Assistance. Before I get to that, however, I should like to thank a few people. Mr Jan Retief, Chairman of the Agricultural Credit Board, is present here and I shall refer to him later on in my speech.

In the period that has just passed we have lived through some difficult times. There have been four years of drought in the Western Transvaal and a great deal of State aid was made available to our people. On this occasion this afternoon, on behalf of all the farmers in my constitutency—and I am probably also speaking on behalf of the majority of those in the Western Transvaal—I should like to thank the Government in particular for the assistance that has been given to our area in recent times. I particularly want to mention our three hon Ministers for the supportive role they played. Here I should also mention the Land Bank, Agricultural Credit and our co-operatives that gave tremendous assistance to our farmers in those areas during this time. I also want to thank the private financial institutions, such as commercial banks, which assisted our farmers during the difficult times. I also want to mention the bank managers in the rural areas, those people who live in close contact with the farmers, and thank them for their contribution. I think that bank managers will increasingly play a role in the future in helping our farmers with financial planning.

The Western Transvaal Synod of the N G Church under the leadership of the moderator, Rev Roux and the Church Secretary, Rev Du Plessis, approached the government in connection with the emergency that existed in that area. Arising out of discussions that we held with the State President, the establishment of an emergency fund in that area was approved. I should also sincerely like to thank the State President on behalf of the people who are making use of that fund at present.

The Department of Agriculture and Water Supply, which was dealt with thoroughly by the hon member for Ladybrand in his speech, has a training function, a research function and an extension function. However, it also has another important function, its financing function which is handled by the Division of Financial Assistance. I should like to concentrate on that in my speech today. The activities of the Division of Financial Assistance is determined to a great extent by the Agricultural Credit Board which consists of the chairman, the said Mr Retief, a deputy chairman and 10 members appointed by the hon the Minister. During the year under review 1983-84, 7 558 applications were considered by that board. During 1984-85, 5 800 applications were considered. The reason for its being slightly less is that some of the schemes which were not directly linked to the drought were stopped. Today I want to thank these board members, as well as the Officials who worked untiringly during these difficult times to assist the farmers of South Africa. I also want to thank the Agricultural Credit Committees throughout our country and all the magistrates who worked day and night to get the application forms ready in Pretoria. The magistrates in our rural areas have a mainly judicial function but they also carry out a very important service as agents for the department.

Having said that, I should also like to tell the hon the Minister today of some of the things I have noticed in the past in connection with our aid programme. These are matters, I think, that I am obliged to raise here in the House today. It includes things that we should introduce with the aim of making the aid programme available to everyone involved as quickly as possible. In the offices of the Division of Financial Assistance there are thousands of files that have to be kept up to date and the officials who have to do it are few in number. I should therefore like to ask the hon the Minister this afternoon if it would not be possible to introduce a computer system to facilitate the work of the said department. It will be of great assistance to us if the forms completed by the farmers could immediately be fed into a computer at the department in Pretoria. Every minute detail concerning every form has, of course, to be fed into the computer in the same way. Many enquiries are directed to that division of the department and many hours and days are lost due to unnecessary searches that have to be made for certain things. I hope the hon the Minister will give his favourable consideration. I do, of course, hope he does not regard my suggestion as far and away too revolutionary by nature.

I also want to raise another matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister. When a farmer’s application is given favourable consideration I think he should be informed about it as soon as possible. This is, in fact, being done. At present the officials are trying to do so to the best of their ability. One’s powers, however, are limited to a certain level. That is why I want to submit that when we again have to deal with such difficult situations in the agricultural sphere we should not only announce an emergency plan in regard to financial aid, but also an emergency plan in regard to the provision of additional officials. In the past the officials at Agricultural Credit have worked many hours of overtime. Flexitime workers were also called in. During the discussion of the Agricultural Vote last year I argued that we should also employ members of the Defence Force for this purpose. We cannot allow financial assistance to be announced when we know that it subsequently takes a tremendous length of time for that assistance eventually to get to the farmers.

I pay tribute to the officials, but I also think that together with financial assistance, additional officials should also be made available to carry out the announced assistance programmes.

I also think that in this regard our co-operatives could play an ever-increasing part in the provision of assistance.

As far as the additional assistance amount of R100 million is concerned, which is only going to be employed to the advantage of the summer grain producers, I want to ask that serious consideration be given to the request of the SA Agricultural Union that these relief measures be applied on an individual basis and that the personal wealth of each applicant play a greater part than what the case has been up until now.

As the problem of drought is being experienced across the entire summer cropping area in varying degrees, it is essential that farmers should be helped on the basis of individual merit. The yardstick should, however, be the fact that the farmer’s present poor financial position is due to the drought during the past few production seasons. I think farmers who are starting out, tenant farmers, and even certain categories of part-time farmers should not be excluded from such assistance. I am convinced that the maximum number of farmers who have the necessary ability to recover could, in fact, be helped in this way.

There was a scheme in operation in the Division of Financial Assistance in accordance with which aid was given to farmers in the provision of electricity to their farms.

For understandable reasons the hon the Minister deemed it fit to put a stop to that scheme. In my constituency we have succeeded in getting Escom to the point where virtually every farm in that area will have electricity available to it by 1987. There are quite a number of farmers who would like to make use of Escom’s electricity in their farming activities but who do not have the necessary finance available to them. I want to advocate to the hon the Minister, if possible, to consider reintroducing that scheme so that that assistance can also be granted to the farmers.

A matter which requires the attention of this House and which one could also describe as one of the fine projects of the Division of Financial Assistance is the aid programme in the designated areas. The granting of assistance in the designated areas takes place in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Credit Act which should be read in conjunction with the Promotion of Density of Population in Designated Areas Act. During the year under review, 1983-84, the Agricultural Credit Board approved loans in that area amounting to R15 million. Of this amount R8 million was made available to help new farmers to obtain land and to assist existing farmers in the area to extend their existing units while R6 million was made available for the stabilising of the farming industry in that area.

A total of 24 farmers were established in the process. It is a relatively large number. During the year under review, 1984-85, an additional 112 loans amounting to R7 million were granted in that area and an additional 10 farmers were also established there.

At this stage it most probably will not be possible, but I should nonetheless like to ask that consideration be given to extending that aid programme, which has already been extended in fine fashion by the department, further along our borders. The depopulation of our border areas continues, and I think that if we were to introduce some of the special relief measures to other spots along our borders it would staunch the depopulation process in those places. (Time expired.)

Mr Chairman, I would like at the outset to associate myself with the good wishes extended to the hon the Minister in respect of this important portfolio. As the hon member for Barberton said, the hon the Minister is well-known to the farming community, and I can assure him that we have the greatest confidence in him.

Is he a tough customer?

I have never had a chance to chew at him! [Interjections.]

I would also like to extend our best wishes to Dr Aggenbach and his officials because we know again that the department is in good hands.

I also want to associate myself with the thanks expressed by the hon member for Schweizer Reneke to the chairman and members of the Agricultural Credit Board. He also included the agricultural credit committees, and I can assure you, Sir, that it is a great pleasure for me to repeat that expression of thanks. I have served on an agricultural credit committee for years and I can assure you that it is no easy job. In fact, it is a very difficult and also time-consuming job, and the members of those committees deserve the thanks of the whole farming community.

I would also like to refer to a point made by the hon member for Barberton in regard to general comment that agriculture is receiving preferential treatment as far as relief measures from the State are concerned. He said that the opinion was now being expressed that agriculture should carry the same economic burden as everybody else. I would like to draw the attention of those who make these remarks, to the fact that agriculture is a unique industry and that it cannot be compared in any way with other industries. Furthermore, I want to point out that there is a distinct difference between the economic problems being experienced by commerce and industry at the present time and those being experienced by agriculture. The difference here is that agriculture has been in a crisis situation for some five to six years.

It is very difficult indeed for anyone speaking during the Committee Stage on this vote to have sufficient time to do justice to this very broad subject. One can only discuss certain aspects of it. Moreover, one will inevitably find oneself trespassing on the terrain of the hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics and of Water Affairs as was remarked on by the hon member for Albany. This happens because certain functions of the two departments are closely intertwined and are linked directly with one another.

In the light of financial assistance to farmers, provided for in this budget through the Agricultural Credit Board, the controversial question of the maize price will inevitably find its way into this debate. It is not my intention to argue the whys and wherefores of the Government’s decision not to increase the producer price of maize. I have already stated quite clearly what the attitude of the NRP is in this regard. However, what is significant is the fact that the Government has changed its stance in regard to the formula that it has applied, in the past, in respect of producer prices of agricultural products. In other words, it has departed from the concept of accepting the cost of production as a basis for the determination of producer prices. The question one asks now is whether this is now going to be the norm for the future.

There is no doubt that the Government was justified—and I say this with due regard to the barrage that is likely to come from the gentlemen on my right—in its decision not to increase the price of maize. If one takes into consideration producer price indices for maize and other agricultural products since 1976 and one uses those as a basis for comparison, it is interesting to note that they reflect that the producer prices of agricultural products other than maize have declined in real terms by some 10 points since 1976 while the producer price of maize has risen by some 25 points over the same period.

I must warn the Government though, that it must not hesitate to give sympathetic consideration to representations for producer price increases in respect of agricultural products where such increases are justified. The Government must also not be seen to be adopting a policy of arbitrarily clamping down on producer prices generally. This in itself will have the effect of killing confidence in the agricultural industry. We in these benches accept the fact that price increases of any commodity must be curbed if inflation is to be brought to heel, and let me make it quite clear that the agricultural sector is prepared to play its part in overcoming the economic problems of the present recession. But this can only be achieved, if agricultural input costs are similarly restrained. I do not have the time to elaborate further on this point beyond stressing that the time has come when increases in the prices of all commodities should not be allowed to go unchallenged. One example in this respect was the announced price increase for fertilizer at the beginning of this year. This has now been played down, specifically with the object of not highlighting what the position is going to be next season when supplies for fertilizer are again required. I repeat my call that there should be a full inquiry into the fertilizer industry of this country, because there is no justification at all for the prices of nitrogenous fertilizers having been increased.

I wish to turn my attention to other aspects of the Budget. I note with regret that no provision has been made for the allocation of funds for housing for farm workers. I realize that this form of assistance has been temporarily withdrawn, but I wish to stress that, irrespective of the present economic recession, the decision to withdraw assistance for the improvement of living conditions on farms is not only short-sighted and retrogressive but also incomprehensible. There is an urgent need for improved housing throughout the agricultural sector. What we must remember is that improved living conditions in the rural areas are fundamental in curbing the drift of people to the urban areas, and one does not have to be reminded as well of the critical housing problems that exist in and around the major towns. I appeal to the hon the Minister to give this matter priority consideration when next discussing aspects of his budget with the Minister of Finance.

In the last few minutes at my disposal I want to deal briefly with the question of animal health services and in particular notifiable diseases. I would ask the hon the Minister to investigate the present TB eradication scheme with a view to streamlining the manner in which it functions and with the object of reducing administrative costs which could probably be better spent on expanding research in the livestock industry.

Let me make it clear that I am not advocating the abandonment of the TB scheme as it has played a vital role in containing TB in the livestock industry. The consequential benefits to the human population have been considerable but it is worth noting that the incidence of bovine TB has been responsible for no more than an estimated 0,1% of afflicted TB patients in the Natal/kwaZulu area. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at the outset I want to thank the hon members for Albany, Ladybrand, Barberton and Schweizer-Reneke as well as the hon member who has just sat down, namely the hon member for Mooi River, for the kind words expressed to me. I think every hon member in this Committee knows that I have a very deep love for agriculture. I think every hon member also knows that I have a very deep love for the Karoo. I sincerely hope that in fulfilling this task I shall not fail in my duty. Taking it a bit further, I may say that in performing this duty, I regard our environment and our land as the highest priority.

*Droughts have had disastrous consequences for man and beast in Africa. Those who were watching television a few evenings ago…

To see Andries.

Occasionally I should like the hon member to be serious too.

Yes, of course. To see Dr Andries Treurnicht.

Order!

I think we were all shocked to see that programme on the famine prevailing in Africa, and the destructive consequences of a drought. Southern Africa was not spared. In fact, I do not think it is going too far to say that in our country too there are areas today in which there is insufficient food. I can point out that at this stage an urgent dialogue is being conducted between my colleagues and myself in regard to our own country and people who lack the necessities of life.

Unfortunately this drought in South Africa coincided with several other factors and had an extremely detrimental effect on our national economy. I do not want to go into the various reasons for this today, and I shall content myself with saying that it is unfortunate that, together with the drought, problems arose within our national economy which aggravated the whole problem in regard to our economy.

I also want to make the point—I believe everyone will agree with me—that it is in fact during this time of drought that the value of agriculture to the national economy becomes very clearly apparent. I do not think anyone can deny this. Although the contribution by agriculture to the gross domestic product is a mere 7%, I want to say that without healthy agriculture in South Africa we really have no hope at all of making the grade with regard to our country and its economy.

In these times, and in spite of our problems within the national economy, aid programmes to farmers have been launched which are undoubtedly, in scope and in terms of money, the greatest ever in the history of this country.

I said it was a pity that the drought coincided with problems in the national economy, yet I want to pay tribute today to my predecessors who established most of these aid programmes. During the almost eight months I have occupied this position, I have been deeply impressed by the hard work done by my two previous colleagues in this respect, and I want to thank them sincerely for this today. I have no doubt whatsoever that if it had not been for these timeous aid programmes, many of our farmers would already have been driven off the land.

Without in any way spoiling the preamble to my speech, I should like to say that it upsets one if it is said across the floor of this House that the Government has withdrawn its hand from the farmers. It upsets me, because anyone with common sense who is prepared to analyse the situation, knows that it is not true.

The prolonged drought in many parts of our country has undoubtedly left its mark, which it will only be possible to eradicate with the greatest degree of discipline and circumspection. When I drive through our natural grazing areas, I feel oppressed. If I devote most of the discussion of this Vote to this aspect it is because I have a deeply-rooted love for our extensive grazing areas in this country, particularly for the Karoo. At some places one feels like sitting down and crying because the grazing has been destroyed to such an extent. The drought has undoubtedly left its mark and my greatest concern is for the time when the rains come again. The rains will come again, just as certainly as the sun also rises. Our faith is too strong not to believe that this will happen. What are we going to do with our natural grazing when the rains come again?

I should like to quote a few passages to confirm my findings in regard to our grazingland. As long ago as 1923 the drought investigating commission devoted an entire subsection of their report to a discussion of the deterioration of the plantcover in South Africa. Concern was expressed in regard to “die donker en afgryslike toekoms wat op die veebedryf wag indien die proses van degradasie van die natuurlike plantegroei ongesteurd sou voortgaan”. Since that time, 60 years have passed, and we are still caught up in this process of deterioration. In 1953 the renowned ecologist, whom many of us know, John Acocks, arrived at the conclusion that more than 50 000 square kilometres of valuable grasslands had degenerated into eroded Karoo since the White settlement was established at the Cape. He warned that unless the process of decay was reversed, the Karoo would by the year 2050 extend as far as the Tugela. These are the perturbing words of one of the most renowned ecologists we have ever had in this country.

In the interim report of the Marais Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture in 1968 the commission expressed its profound concern at the excessive demands made on the veld, the rate of deterioration thereof, the increase in erosion and the susceptibility of the areas subjected to the worst droughts. The commission concluded:

Research by the department and the CSIR, with the help of earth-satellite photographs, found as long ago as 1973 that the Karoo had during the previous two decades penetrated approximately 70 km northwards and eastwards into the grasslands. The latest Landsat satellite pictures confirm the relentless eastward march of the Karoo, while to the west desert encroachment is occurring. I said that I had a profound love for the Karoo, but I should not like to share my Karoo with the grasslands in the east, really I would not. I think we should keep the Karoo to ourselves and prevent encroachment on those grasslands.

I want to go further and say that it is clearly apparent that the natural grazing land in White possession at present cannot carry more than 7,5 million head of large livestock. According to the latest surveys of livestock population, the national herd at present consists of 13,1 million head of large livestock, So I can continue. Let me quote a few other interesting passages. In the 1968 report of the Marais Commission, the following may be found:

There is also a tendency among stock farmers to ascertain how much livestock they must keep to maintain a certain income level—that is precisely what the hon member for Barberton said—without establishing whether the resources are in fact capable of carrying the desired quantity of livestock. Most farmers overestimate the carrying capacity of their veld, as was also asserted by various hon members in previous debates. I do not want to quote any further, but I could carry on in this vein.

Perhaps I should just make one more point in this connection. The fixing of prices for cash crops does in fact have a specific effect on land use by the entrepeneur. We must have no illusions about that. Great expectations—perhaps I am saying a harsh thing now—are created in the farmer to cultivate even low potential land for agronomic production. After all, this has happened in our country. Let us admit this candidly to one another—it is true. The hon member for Lichtenburg is sitting there in silence, but it is the truth. He knows it, because it has happened in his part of the world. We have, in other words, encouraged certain farming practices in this country with prices. I was once in Northam in the Northern Transvaal, which probably has some of the finest stock grazing land in the world, and the extension officer told me: Seven bulldozers are operating in this district. I asked him what they were doing. He told me they were uprooting trees to clear the land for maize planting. I said it was criminal. When such marginal land is withdrawn from cultivation after a few years it is not possible to reestablish good natural grazing there. In fact, it takes a lifetime to do so. And then, too, the carrying capacity of the veld diminishes in the process.

†I said earlier that there are certain factors that are largely beyond the control of the individual fanner, but fortunately the individual is also in a position to exert considerable influence over several factors. The success and devotion with which he fulfils his duties in this regard will more than anything else determine his survival as a farmer. I want to touch on only two subjects. First of all I want to refer to water economics. Despite work done by many researchers countrywide, no firm evidence could be found that the average rainfall of the country is decreasing. I should say in the past three years, yes, but on average no firm evidence could be found to prove this statement. There are indications that this cyclical pattern of dry and wet years is something that we shall have to live with. More than 60 years ago—and I have already referred to it—the Drought Commission of 1922 tabled a report in Parliament stating, inter alia, the following

I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that in this utility of rainfall must be sought the secret of our droughts.

Although a farmer has no influence on the total rainfall on his farm, he is fortunately in a position to influence the effectiveness of rainfall in a direct or indirect way. Effective rainfall which means the rainfall that will be at the disposal of the plant to produce is the key factor and is influenced by losses in runoff, evaporation from the denuded areas, transpiration by non-edible plants etc. I want to quote Dr Daan Opperman whom I think everybody knows. He said:

The total loss in economic terms because of ineffective water utilization speaks for itself.

Secondly I come to stocking rates which is the main issue of my speech this afternoon. Although it has been proven without doubt that it pays to synchronize stocking rates and veld potential, the present sad state of affairs in our country constitutes a combination of neglect, negative attitudes and economic considerations. Danckwerts and King in a very excellent paper called Conservative Stocking or Maximum Profit? A Grazing Management Dilemma, came to the following conclusion:

They summarize their findings as follows:

A possible explanation for this is perhaps that the market, or investment value of land is much higher than its value in terms of production potential. I say this very clearly so that everybody can hear it. A possible explanation for this is that the market or investment value of land is much higher than its value in terms of production potential.

Danckwerts and King calculated further that—

We can go on in this vein, page after page.

*Everyone who has an interest in this matter and a love for the soil, can only arrive at one conclusion in this country, and that is that our natural grazing is deteriorating at an alarming rate. Hon members in this House must have no illusions about that, and I am making this very clear today so that everyone can understand it. This generation of people—as we are sitting here today—will have to rectify this situation. We shall have to bring about a reversal. I want to say today that in this task that I have now accepted I have resolved to apply all the means at my disposal to set this process in motion. I shall not allow myself to be deterred by anyone; nor by any threats in regard to any steps that are going to be taken. We simply cannot allow wasteful exploitation to be applied to our natural grazing any longer. We must have something to leave to posterity. As a result of all this information at our disposal my department has therefore worked out a national grazing strategy, and it is my privilege to announce it. I am therefore pleased to announce the new National Grazing Strategy.

One of the last tasks of my hon colleague, the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing under the previous constitutional dispensation, was the submission of a White Paper on Agricultural Policy during the discussion of his Vote in May 1984. At this stage I first want to interrupt myself. The hon member for Barberton said that nothing had come of it. Surely that is not true. I think the hon member is being a little unreasonable, but I do not want to attack him on this point, because he made a very good speech. However, I do not think it is true that nothing came of the White Paper. In any event, we can debate the issue later; I should like to discuss the matter with the hon member.

The favourable reception which the White Paper met with in Parliamentary circles as well as in organized agriculture makes me feel hopeful that there will be no lack of enthusiasm and support in regard to efforts to implement the guidelines contained in that White Paper. Since the acceptance of the White Paper by the Government, the officers of the two departments who are involved in the matter have not allowed the grass to grow under their feet. In numerous discussions, with a finger on the pulse of organized agriculture—they have deliberated on ways in which the objectives of the agricultural policy should be implemented. Within the confines of the austerity budget and of the limited professional and technical manpower, it was necessary to consider a priority determination of the various goals, and to single out specific priorities. For many good reasons the choice fell upon a programme of action aimed at the conservation and development of the grazing land of the Republic. The result is the vitally important documentation concerning a national grazing strategy which has been placed at the disposal of hon members, to coincide with my comment on it. In this document the first phase of the implementation of the White Paper is outlined, and it can therefore justifiably be termed an extension of the White Paper.

As a point of departure for my exchange of ideas with hon members of this House the following quotation from the White Paper will serve: “Moreover, the natural grazing has deteriorated to an alarming extent.” I have already pointed this out, and quoted various authorities in this connection. This statement is a confirmation of the findings of the various commissions of enquiry since the twenties. Experts are agreed that the rapid rate of veld deterioration in South Africa is not only the result of droughts but can be attributed mainly to incorrect utilization methods, over-exploitation of the veld and maladjusted farming systems—particularly immediately after droughts. These are practices which still continue.

Many reasons can be advanced as to why, despite 60 years of awareness of the grazing problem, little progress has been made. There are quite a number of identifiable negative or restrictive factors which can be traced back to the attitude of the farmer as entrepeneur to faulty policy and incorrect Government decisions—yes, let everyone examine their own conscience; the authorities, too, are prepared to examine their own conscience in this regard—to economic considerations and to deficiencies in the research set-up and in the extension services. However, I shall leave these aspects at that for the moment.

An expert inventory of our grazing heritage reveals disconcertingly inter alia that Karoo penetration has in two decades occurred up to 70 kilometers in a north-easterly direction. Secondly, approximately three million hectares of bushveld area have been invaded to such an extent by ligneous species that they are useless for normal stock farming. Thirdly, approximately two million hectares of veld in the North-western Cape have deteriorated to such an extent that it cannot be restored to productive grazing using normal control measures. Moreover, veld conditions in half of the 1,4 million hectares of Drakensberg grazing area of the South-eastern Transvaal subregion are so poor that stock ought to be withdrawn from the area for a considerable length of time. A similar situation was revealed by surveys in the Eastern Cape region, with its jointed cactus and nasella problem.

Despite inputs of R50 million with the stock reduction scheme in the seventies, it was not possible to stabilize the condition of the veld in the extensive sheep regions. Only temporary improvement was obtained in isolated cases. The many millions of rands paid out by the State to stock farmers in the drought-stricken grazing regions since 1983, finally underlined the crisis proportions which veld deterioration has assumed throughout the country.

Against such a sombre background five of the White Paper goals were involved in the national strategy for utilization, conservation and development of the grazing land of the Republic. They are: To establish an independent and financially sound industry, to limit ad hoc measures to a minimum, to strive for a maximum number of well-trained and financially sound farmers in the grazing regions, to bolster up regional development, and to strive for self-sufficiency in respect of meat and fibre. Of these goals two in particular deserve further elucidation within the context of a grazing strategy.

From a rural, sociological and national security point of view, and taking into consideration the depopulation tendency, the Government places a high priority on the occupation of the available agricultural land, of which 80% is suitable only for stock farming. To prevent further depopulation of the extensive grazing areas in our country, the deterioration of the veld must not only be halted, it is indeed our earnest intention to reverse this process of deterioration. In addition a regional development strategy is being promoted by the optimum utilization of agricultural resources.

If the natural veld were to be increasinly neglected—only 10% is still in a good condition, 30% in a reasonable and 60% in a poor condition—it places a question mark against viable population development programmes and against community development projects in the rural areas.

The overall recommendation in the document which was placed at the disposal of hon members is that a national grazing strategy must be undertaken this year with this general objective: To utilize, develop and manage natural and planted grazing in such a way that the greatest sustained advantage is obtained for the present generation, with the retention of the production potential to meet the needs of coming generations.

†To attain this objective the following goals will have to realized: Livestock numbers must be limited to prescribed long-term grazing capacities as dictated by climate, soil and vegetation. The instrument for achieving this goal will be the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983, whereby grazing capacity norms for all parts of the country will be prescribed by regulation. Guidelines for adapted utilization systems for each relatively homegeneous grazing area must be specified and implemented by the farming community. Guidelines for alternative and supplementary animal production strategies that do not rely only or principally on natural and cultivated pastures must be developed.

Naturally, the grazing strategy will have certain implications when put into practice. Firstly, it will need to enjoy widespread support so that problems relating to policies and actions of both the authorities and the entrepreneurs can be eliminated. Such constraints mainly concern product price administration and the impact thereof on the utilization of the agricultural resources, and the influence of fiscal and taxation policies on the decision-making of the livestock farmer.

Further implications are that a quid pro quo concerning stock numbers and management practices must be a prerequisite for State assistance to livestock farmers. Steps must be taken to prevent the creation of uneconomic farm units and ways and means must be found to encourage the natural movement of animals from low to high potential areas. If time permits I will return to this problem later.

The problem of overexploitation and mismanagement of the natural veld in some adjoining Black states, which adversely affects the ecology of grasslands in the Republic as well as the implementation of adaptor systems on bordering White farms must also be given attention.

A further implication concerning the grazing strategy is the need to shift the emphasis or to change direction within our agricultural technical services. Higher priority and imputs will have to be given to veld and pastures. The department’s current research imputs are largely directed at agronomic and horticultural needs, while pasture research enjoys relatively less attention.

Higher returns from annual cropping have resulted in farmers better appreciating the profitability of relevant innovations and, as a result, readily accepting improved production techniques. In contrast, the benefits from innovations in the spheres of pasture and animal science are realized over much longer periods. This has already resulted in research and especially extension in the fields of agronomy and horticulture attaining high levels of sophistication while in many respects extension in the field of pasture production has not achieved the anticipated results.

When one considers the departmental budget of R518 million for the 1982-83 financial years, one sees that only 1% or R4,7 million was allocated to pasture and botanical research compared with the 5% or R25 million and the 6% or R30 million allocated to plant and animal production research, respectively.

One of the main challenges of the extension service is to bring about change in the perception and attitude of livestock producers in terms of pasture management practices through the promotion of carefully formulated “messages”. Let me hasten to add that we are fortunate in having a nucleus of farmers in all grazing areas who already apply sound veld management practices with great success. The results clearly show what can be achieved and they give hope for the future. These fanners could play a valuable leadership role in the proposed strategy.

The Government is determined that the National Grazing Strategy will succeed and, with the co-operation of our sister department, the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, will ensure that the necessary control measures are enforced so that the provisions of the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act become effective. There will be no hesitation in taking action in cases where deterioration of the natural veld can be ascribed to the injudicious actions of the land user. I also have the assurance that soil protection officers will give high priority to cases where the prescribed grazing capacity norms are exceeded to the detriment of the natural resource.

The Conservation of Agricultural Resources act is not restricted to the enforcement of statutory control measures. Provision is also made for the introduction of financial aid schemes to enable the farmer to effectively protect the agricultural resources. Subsequent to the proclamation of the first Soil Conservation Act in 1946, the State has made available more than R140 million for soil conservation subsidies. Unfortunately, in many cases little has been done on the part of the farmers themselves to ensure that the aims for which such aid was provided, could be realized. It is now accepted policy that in future no financial aid for landowners in terms of Act 43 of 1983 will be considered unless the provisions relating to veld utilization and resting are strictly complied with. [Interjections.]

*Hon members must listen very carefully; these are harsh words we are using here, but we must begin somewhere.

The State has always been willing to support farmers financially during times of drought. Since 1983 R198 million has poured out of the State coffers to keep stock farmers in the drought-stricken areas on their feet. The approach is frequently made that drought aid actually subsidises overgrazing. The drought aid rendered is primarily aimed at the retention of the natural agricultural resources, and in future stock reduction will serve as a requirement for qualifying for the rendering of drought aid.

This brings me to a discussion of the components of the departmental programme of action which will be necessary for the successful implementation of the National Grazing Strategy. It makes provision for an extension programme synchronised and harmonized with future research programmes to ensure that adapted utilisation systems for the various grazing areas of this county will be determined and accepted and applied by the community. Programmed extension activities in regard to grazing and stock management practices aimed at realising the objectives of the grazing strategy, will therefore have to be initiated in all the grazing regions. The agricultural development programme of the various agricultural regions of the department will be adjusted accordingly in order to give this task the necessary priorities. Steps are already being taken inter alia to initiate the aforesaid activities in the Karoo region and in the Southeastern Transvaal.

It is also considered to be important that extention officers in the grazing regions of this country shall in future have to comply with certain minimum educational requirements, and will have to be supported by a strong group of specialist extension officers. Special attention will be given to this matter by means of personnel recruitment and training by the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply.

The grazing strategy can only succeed if the livestock and game numbers are maintained in proportion to the long-term grazing potential of the veld, as dictated by the environmental factors, climate, soil and vegetation. There is no doubt that overgrazing is a principle factor contributing to the present poor veld conditions in South Africa. Grazing capacity norms have already been determined by the department for all parts of our country, and high priority will be given to research to refine and improve these norms on an on-going basis. The department will also undertake research to establish reliable drought indices and to develop a service to inform stock farmers timeously about the expected influence of changing climatic conditions on the grazing capacity of veld. Reference points will be established throughout the country to monitor changes in veld conditions over a period of time.

Deficiencies have also been identified in the input in regard to basic grazing research, and within the financial means of the authorities, funds will be provided to eliminate these deficiencies and to establish an organisational structure to co-ordinate and direct grazing research on a national basis. Prominence is given in the grazing strategy to the fact that the needs of the livestock herds in this country, to maintain a satisfactory level of production, must be reconciled with the managerial needs required to maintain a viable veld structure. Guidelines for alternative and supplementary animal production strategies not dependent only or primarily on a natural and established grazing will consequently be laid down by the Department.

The grazing strategy also requires that a dialogue be conducted with the authorities of the various training institutions such as agricultural high schools, agricultural colleges, technicons and the agricultural faculties at universities to ensure that grazing curricula, if necessary, are adapted to ensure the desired integration of grazing and stock management practices.

†The proposed strategy is not only directed at solving problems but is future-oriented. For this reason it includes guidelines for the utilization of veld and pastures and the rendering of services in South Africa’s grazing areas over the long term.

In future a differential approach will be followed in allocating manpower and funds that will correspond to the requirements of the various ecological areas of the country. Those areas not ecologically suited to commercial livestock farming must be identified so that the necessary steps for socio-economic restructuring can be formulated. Similarly, fields of research necessary to adequately exploit the vast potential of the high rainfall areas of the country must be identified.

The department accepts that the high priority allocated to the utilization, protection and development of veld and pastures in the RSA will demand that existing programmes be re-evaluated. If necessary, certain existing activities will be scaled down so that adequate manpower and funds can be made available to ensure that the aims of the grazing strategy are achieved within the specific time period.

Notwithstanding the above intentions of the department, the grazing strategy will succeed only if all those institutions concerned with the utilization of agricultural resources commit themselves to full support of the strategy. To facilitate direct participation by such bodies, it is proposed that an advisory committee for pasture matters be established. The purpose of this committee will be to advise the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply on all matters concerning the utilization, conservation and development of South Africa’s grasslands, including the action necessary for handling identified problems and target areas in terms of research, extension, training and regulatory needs, and to co-ordinate all relevant action programmes. Finally, periodic evaluation of the progress made with the grazing strategy is given as a major need. Hon members will also note that specific goals and associated target dates have been clearly stipulated in the document provided.

The partnership between my department and the South African farming community has yielded spectacular results in the promotion and expansion of the agricultural industry over a period spanning four to five generations. Statistics show that the production of food and fibre has reached high levels, thanks on the one hand to the department’s research and extension input and on the other hand to the application of these inputs by the farmer.

Two world wars, catastrophic droughts, depressions and other crises have strengthened the partnership. A stage has been reached where the department and organized agriculture have a very similar view and understanding in relation to solving production problems related to the industry. The recent example of this has been the acceptance of the guidelines given in the White Paper by the South African Agricultural Union.

If the Government commits itself to allocating a high priority to the utilization, protection and development of our pasturage, this will pose a formidable challenge to that partnership, especially the stock-farmer component, comparable to that posed by execution of the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act.

For its part the department will be committed to greater participation by means of research and extension in the fields of pasture utilization and livestock management, to the revision of the agricultural development programmes of its seven regional organizations and to the creation of an efficient organizational structure to ensure the necessary control and evaluation of our grazing resources.

This also implies new inputs and new attitudes towards grasslands production and the conservation task of our farmers. On the part of our farmers there must be a greater acceptance of the so-called whole-farm extension message, the will to change from old to new production techniques, greater confidence in the value of innovations and more trust in the leadership of regional organizations.

By means of consensus in regard to the optimal utilization of South Africa’s grazing areas we will promote economic stability and the wellbeing of the Republic’s inhabitants.

The Republic of South Africa finds itself on the eve of the 75th anniversary of the former Union of South Africa. Thanks to the enthusiasm, perseverance and vision of former generations representing both language groups, the four original colonies were combined to form a single constitutional entity. It is fitting on this occasion to commit the present generation to the future wellbeing of our country and its peoples by means of the National Grazing Strategy.

*Mr Chairman, it is perhaps also fitting, since it was precisely a century ago today that the original section of this Parliamentary building was used for the first time, to express the hope that this new National Grazing Strategy will be received with great enthusiasm by our farming community, particularly in the arid regions of our country, and that they will apply it in an effort to realize the main objective in the White Paper on the future of agriculture.

Mr Chairman, there is one thing which I have made my life-long ideal. One reaches a stage when one realizes that one is nearing the end of one’s public career. That is why I have made it my life task to cause this grazing strategy to succeed because it is precisely by means of this strategy that one can ensure that my people—my Karoo people—the people of the North Western Cape, of Namaqualand, of Bushmanland and elsewhere will generate within themselves the will to survive, and will also have the will to continue with their farming activities there. We can only achieve this if we accept this strategy with great enthusiasm.

On a subsequent occasion, Mr Chairman, I shall react in greater detail to the individual speeches made by hon members.

Mr Chairman, in my view today is a joyous day in the history of the agricultural industry in South Africa. I am making this assertion for two reasons. Firstly, because this absolutely timely national grazing strategy that the hon the Minister announced to us here today is becoming a reality at this particular stage. I want to assure him that we fully support him in this matter. Like him we should like to see his goal in life, that of getting this grazing strategy effectively implemented in South Africa, become a reality. I sincerely hope we shall succeed in it. I shall return to this subject later.

The second matter which makes this a joyous day for me is the fact that so many hon members, particularly also members of the opposition parties, have pleaded the case of the part-time farmer. I think the part-time farmer in South Africa, as in every other country in the world, has undeniably a very big role to play in the agricultural industry. I think it is indubitably part of a modern agricultural industry. I think part-time farming is particularly one of those kinds of undertakings that has allowed the risk factor, which is specifically present to a great extent in agriculture in South Africa, to be distributed somewhat. Our agricultural industry in South Africa, I think, would be justified in undergoing this change in structure for the purpose of accommodating a greater percentage of part-time farmers in South Africa. I agree with the hon member for Barberton that the full-time farmer, because of his role in the agricultural industry, could never be replaced. I also agree with him that part-time farming could be of greater importance. I thank the hon members for Albany, Barberton and also for Schweizer-Reneke for referring to this important matter.

As far as the national grazing strategy is concerned, I want to assert that in its application use will have to be made of coercive and persuasive measures. We know the adage of the stick and the carrot. The coercive measures, the stick, which are embodied in this grazing strategy are such that farmers will not qualify for soil conservation subsidies if they do not satisfy the prescribed management practices. This also affects the granting of drought aid. In future farmers will no longer receive drought aid if they do not carry out the prescribed management practices, particularly in respect to the carrying capacity of the veld. In my view that is very important. It is also a fact that with a view to this grazing strategy the Conservation of Natural Resources Act will very clearly have to be implemented more strictly in the future and will have to have more teeth. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon the Minister on this. We support him. We cannot allow our pasturage, in particular, that valuable resource of ours, to be destroyed by some farmers who do not care two hoots for what has been entrusted to them only on a temporary basis.

In my view the second most important input to get the grazing strategy to succeed is the utilization of persuasive measures, particularly by means of extension. This is the carrot. The stick is the coercive measures; the carrot is the persuasive measures. Pasturage control practices are not at all easily accepted. It is the experience of extension officers that it is probably one of the most difficult practices to find acceptance for in the farming community. This applies particularly to the lower stocking rate as well which is an essential. The hon the Minister referred to it. There should be a lower stocking rate on our farms because the stocking rate of many farmers completely exceeds the carrying capacity of their veld. In my view it is essential that when these extension activities take place the agricultural extension officers need not necessarily be experts in the discipline of grazing or pasturage control but that they should be propagandists. That is really the correct word to use. They should be experts in communication. They should be able to convey a message to the fanner. It would also have to a co-ordinated and a concentrated extension effort to get the national grazing strategy implemented in South Africa by persuasive means. We are really looking forward to receiving the Kolb report on agricultural extension in South Africa and to finding out what their view of the extension campaign is, particularly in our grazing areas, and of how it should be co-ordinated.

If I may ciriticize the national grazing strategy, I would say it involves too much stick and too little carrot. I am not saying that there is too great a dependence on coercive measures. I support all the coercive measures that are contained in this. In my opinion, however, too little emphasis is placed on the essential persuasion processes that should also be linked to this. Unlike the hon member for Barberton I want to say that there should be a greater balance between coercive and persuasive measures so as eventually to make it possible for the hon the Minister to achieve his goal in life.

Mr Chairman, I think we have perhaps heard from the hon the Minister today one of the most important speeches that has been made in this House this session. I can give him the assurance that whatever steps he takes or deems necessary to implement a grazing strategy to protect our natural resources will get the full support of this side of the House.

I have always held the view that in the long run it does not matter what type of constitution we may develop or come up with because if we destroy our natural resource base no constitution will help us very much at all.

While I am on this subject I feel I ought to digress a little to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister what is happening in many of our homelands and self-governing states because what is happening there is little short of an environmental disaster. It will not help us very much if we implement a grazing strategy in so-called White South Africa when what is happening over the border in half of our country is a complete disaster.

Of course, we differ with the hon the Minister on solutions for this. This side of the House holds that the solution lies with a vigorous rural development and urbanization programme, and I hope this will also receive the attention of the hon the Minister.

There is little doubt that farmers and other people who have land hold that land in trust for future generations. They do not have the right to use the land as they see fit. It is up to the State and to all of us in this Committee to ensure that correct land use is applied in this country.

The primary goal of any agricultural policy is to provide food and fibre for the nation and to provide this as efficiently as possible while maintaining a viable agricultural industry. Our policy should also be to maintain our agricultural resource base. The hon the Minister referred to this today.

It is in this context that I should like to add to what the hon member for Albany said today. We do not see the sense in having a separate Department of Agriculture for own affairs and a similar department for general affairs because matters so often overlap one another. I have just mentioned for example the grazing strategy. This strategy should not apply to own affairs alone; it should apply to everybody. The legislation in respect of agricultural resources should equally apply to everybody. The same applies when one discusses certain topics.

Let us look at the plight in which maize farmers find themselves. In order to analyse this, we have to start looking at how the maize farmers got there, but then we find ourselves in the sphere of the hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics. This is the problem which we continually find by having the two departments separated in the way they are. I hope, Sir, that because of this you are going to allow us a little leeway as far as the debate is concerned.

We in this party have always argued, as the hon member for Albany said today, that the whole question of land should be depoliticized. We are not going to solve our problems in this country by passing on different pieces of land to different people. Having said that, I shall not take it any further.

The first issue to which I should like to address myself is the question of the allocation of agricultural resources in South Africa. Much has been said and much has been printed in recent weeks about the plight of the maize farmers and the whole maize industry. A lot of this has of course been blamed on the drought, and rightly so. A lot has also been blamed—I believe rightly so—on the policies which we have been following. The one-channel, fixed price scheme was mentioned by the hon the Minister today. Its very nature and the manner by which prices are set, based on production costs, and also a very powerful agricultural lobby, has ensured that prices have often been set higher than the long-term market equilibrium.

What has been the result of this? First of all too many resources, particularly marginal land, has been devoted to maize production in particular. The second result has been that maize land prices have increased considerably in recent years. Maize land values in the summer rainfall crop production areas virtually doubled from 1980-81 to 1983-84.

Maize farmers in these areas will not be helped by increasing prices. Those with no Maize to sell are not going to be helped at all. The increased prices are invariably going to help the bigger farmers and those in the better production areas, which will in turn provide them with the incentive to increase production. What we really should be doing—and now I come back to the hon the Minister’s portfolio—is removing resources from the production of maize. That is the root of the problem and where we should be looking. We should not be looking to increased prices to solve the problem. As far as resources for the production of maize are concerned, obviously the main resource is land. The hon the Minister spoke today of bulldozers in the Northern Transvaal and of many people who are not really farmers but who mine the land.

I have made a plea before for a floor price scheme. The floor price for next year could, for example, very easily be set at the present price. A floor price scheme would invariably result in lower prices and land being removed from…

That is not necessarily the case.

There is a very logical reason why the floor price could be set at this year’s price. It would start removing let us say land from the production of maize which I believe is what we have to do in this country.

In the years ahead agriculture is going to face incredible challenges. The hon the Minister will have read document 24 of 1983 of the SAAU on the demands that are going to be made of agriculture between now and the year 2000. For example, the document mentions that the increase in real expenditure on food is going to be about 150%. What we need if we are going to meet these challenges is for agriculture to be placed on a healthy footing so that it will be sound and adaptable in order to meet these challenges. To get agriculture on a healthy footing we must make the whole industry more market-oriented. We must get away from insulating farmers from the effect of the market by giving them fixed prices, and that is why I say we must get away from the fixed price scheme.

If we are going to have this more adaptable and vigorous agriculture which can cope with our future needs, there are a few things we have to look at. The first is irrigation. There is no doubt that in the years to come, with our very limited agricultural resource base in South Africa, much of the expanded production in our country is going to come from irrigation farming. At the moment over 70% of the water in South Africa is used for irrigation purposes. Water has also been identified, according to the report of the President’s Council on population, as one of the most limited resources in our country. Agriculture is going to come increasingly into competition with urban and industrial users of water, and invariably it is going to happen that agriculture will end up lower on the scale of priorities.

Having said this, I think there are a number of things we should look at. The first is that we will have to investigate more efficient systems of water usage. At the moment huge amounts of water are being wasted, for example through our various irrigation systems such as earth furrows, flood irrigation etc. There are some experts who estimate that even with our present state of technology we could save over 30% of our current water usage.

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon Whip for his kindness.

As an example I mention that in Natal last year as a result of the drought some farmers were cut back by some 40% on their water allocation in the Umgeni catchment area and they nevertheless managed to maintain their production without losing very much at all. Another point is—I know it is probably sensitive—that I believe the time has come where farmers should pay a more market related price for their water. By way of example, in the Hex River Valley farmers pay the highest price of all which is 9,13 cents per cubic metre. In Vaalhartz farmers pay 0,88 cents per cubic metre and in the Northern Transvaal they pay 0,98 cents per cubic metre, while urban consumers are paying 33 cents per cubic metre. On most irrigation schemes farmers are not even paying the variable costs of operating those schemes, let alone making any repayments on the capital costs.

[Inaudible.]

I know it has been the policy up to now, but the best way to ration the use of any resource is through the price system, and I am sure the hon the Minister will agree.

There is something else about irrigation schemes which I think needs attention. In future irrigation schemes should be developed in the wetter, more humid parts of the country. There is a very good reason for this because in these areas only supplementary irrigation is required. The natural rainfall can provide for most of the needs of any crop. So a cubic metre of irrigation water used in a humid area is far more cost-effective than a cubic metre of irrigation water applied in a very dry area. With our limited resources that is going to be an area where I believe irrigation schemes show the most promise for the future.

Another issue which is going to be very important is the question of extension services. Unfortunately we have not yet been able to see the Kolb Report—I believe the hon the Minister has it in his possession—so we do not know what the recommendations are. However, there is little doubt that as far as extension services are concerned, there are firstly not enough extension officers. Secondly, those who are there, are relatively young and inexperienced. I am casting no aspersions on them, but the conditions of service within the department are unfortunately not such as to easily retain the services of many of these officers. I believe we should look at imaginative schemes to try to retain the services of extension personnel. For example, it could be a solution to make more use of part-time extension officers. Another solution may be to give incentives whereby extension officers will be able to get into farming on condition that they give part of their time to service as extension officers.

Secondly, I think what is more important is that we should concentrate on the economic aspects of extension in the future. What we need here is not only economics in terms of production costs and physical planning on farms, but also a very important service which the State can provide, is to provide economic data, economic forecasts on which farmers can base their production decisions. For the efficient operation of any free market economy, people need information. The extension services could assist with the forecasting of prices and help with the forecasting of crops and yields so that farmers themselves would be able to make estimates of what they could expect. It would be of inestimable value to farming in the future.

Before I finish I should like to speak very briefly about farm credit. Much has been said about credit today, and I agree with most of what has been said, but I think we should be aware in this House of the increasingly important role co-operatives are playing in the provision of credit in South Africa. The straits in which many farmers find themselves are due to the fact that too much injudicious credit has been granted to agriculture by co-operatives. I think it is time that cooperatives drew up very clear guidelines setting out the basis on which they will grant credit.

While on the subject of co-operatives I am also firmly of the opinion that competition between co-operatives should be allowed. This is borne out by the findings of the Aranjes Commission and we support the fact that there should be competition. Farmers must have an element of choice, and competition also ensures that co-operatives are more competitive among themselves.

Finally, I wish to say something about the question of co-operatives vis-á-vis companies. There are still certain problems between co-operatives and industry, and I think it is high time that these were rectified. Perhaps this will be done by the Margo Commission—I do not know. There are still loopholes in the tax structure being exploited by co-operatives where they can deduct loan repayments from taxable income and escape tax on bonuses retained as a capital levy from farmers. These are problems that industry have. They believe it puts co-operatives on a more competitive footing vis-á-vis industry. Another one of the issues is the old perennial problem, namely the use co-operatives make of the automatic lien that they have which gives them a competitive advantage in the purchasing of inputs …

Does it give advantages to the cooperatives?

It is advantageous to the co-operatives, yes.

I do not agree with the hon member. [Interjections.]

I do not have time to argue this question with the hon the Minister but I am sure that another opportunity will present itself. The automatic lien on a crop certainly does give very powerful competitive advantages to co-operatives vis-á-vis industry. I am prepared to argue that point at any time.

Finally, agriculture is going to be facing many challenges in the future. It is up to all of us in this House to ensure that it remains viable and adaptable enough in the future to provide for the growing needs of South Africa. We believe that this can best be done by ensuring that the whole agricultural industry becomes far more market related in the future.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South dealt with a whole number of affairs, and I do not have the opportunity to respond to everything now.

I find it an alarming fact that after 60 years’ awareness by researchers and even by the Government of the deterioration of the veld and the natural grazing in this country, the situation has shown no improvement whatsoever. I find it even more disquieting if one thinks that as long as 30 years ago, almost exact predictions were made by grazing experts about the state of natural pastures today. If those predictions are realized after 20 or 30 years, I think we can justifiably ask ourselves whether all the research and guidance in this connection was of any value. Was that money thrown away? One would almost say so.

If we look, however, at certain examples of farms in overgrazed parts and we see how the natural grazing has reacted on those exceptional farms where the research results were applied and attention was paid to the guidance given, we realize that the available research and guidance was sufficient. It was not applied by the cattle farmers of this country, however. We can then rightly ask why this is the case. I believe the answer to be quite obvious, viz that the research results are not applied to natural grazing because the favourable results are not as clearly perceptible.

If we compare the situation of the crop farmer, fruit farmer or dairy farmer with that of the stock farmer, the picture becomes clear to us. A crop farmer will apply guidance given to him—in respect of a better fertilization programme for argument’s sake—in the same year and will see the results. This does not apply to the stock farmer, however. He will apply correct conservation farming, but will only reap the fruits of this after perhaps 5, 6 or 10 years.

In view of the National Grazing Strategy announced by the hon the Minister today, I want to ask him to try a new approach in respect of the stock farmers. We must make the stock farmer mindful also of the immediate results of the correct application of research findings. I want to tell the hon the Minister that there are immediate results also for the stock farmer—as for the crop farmer who administers the correct fertilizer—if only he wants to take note of them. We shall have to use our information service in this connection, however, to tell the stock farmers that their “harvest” is not the meat, wool or milk that they get from the animals on natural grazing. That is not their harvest; it is merely the container in which their harvest is marketed. Their harvest is the plant material produced on the natural grazing. If the correct practices are applied, those stock-farmers will also be able to see the immediate results of their grazing—or “harvest”. This can motivate them to take part in a grazing strategy, which can salvage the situation.

In addition I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he is of the opinion that the failure of the strategies followed in the past to achieve that to which the hon the Minister has now committed himself, is not attributable to our information campaign drawing the stock-farmers’ attention from their real harvest. We drew their attention from the veld that they had to look after. Instead of doing that, they confined themselves to the cattle, the wool, the meat and the milk. If they look at that, they are committing themselves to certain grazing norms which are set by the department. As was the case in the past, farmers then begin to believe—and I hope the hon the Minister agrees with me—that complying with certain grazing norms, as determined by the department, is the Alpha and the Omega of conservation fanning. I want to ask the hon the Minister, who is a practical farmer, whether it is not true that the specific grazing norms in drought years are set hopelessly too high. Is it not true that even if a farmer were to comply with the grazing norms, and yet, in accordance with those norms, used the veld injudiciously for grazing after a drought, great damage would be done to the natural grazing? On the other hand it is just as true that those same grazing norms could be too low in prosperous years.

What am I trying to say? I am trying to say the whole campaign to make the farmers aware of conservation in respect of the natural grazing should, in my opinion, be aimed at trying to convince them to look at their real harvest, viz to get to know their veld—their natural grazing—and to know that if it is depastured too heavily after a drought, one destroys a harvest. I almost want to compare it to a maize farmer who, just after his maize was to come up, would chase a lot of cattle over it. The pasturalist does exactly the same if, after a drought, when the good plant species have to establish themselves, he allows the veld to be overgrazed. That is why I feel we should have a newer, fresher approach to this matter.

I should like to refer specifically to the National Grazing Strategy as announced by the hon the Minister today. There is one point I see as the crux of the whole report. It is point 4.5 and it reads as follows:

This is the crux of this report. If the attention of our farmers is drawn from complying precisely with grazing norms—if I say this, I am criticizing this report to a great extent, but I think it necessary for it to be said—they can give their attention to what requires their attention, viz the fact that the grazing is deteriorating at such a terrible rate.

I even have to criticize the point I quoted as being the crux of the report. Towards the end it says:”…’n gevolglike vermoë van die veld of weiding om normale veegetalle te dra.” There is no such thing as normal cattle numbers, however. In a drought year the so-called “normale veegetalle” will cause damage, whereas in another year the number may be too low. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I can find no fault with the contribution made by the hon member for Fauresmith, particularly in respect of the hon the Minister’s National Grazing Strategy. I think his approach that in the first place the stockfarmer should be a good pasturalist, is a very sound approach.

In respect of the National Grazing Strategy announced by the hon the Minister, I want to tell him I think it is one thing to discuss the practical application and the technical aspects of a laudable cause like the one he has announced, and we support him fully in doing so. Another aspect, however, is the role played by the Government in this.

This afternoon I again noticed the attitude with which the hon the Minister announced this fine matter. He said nothing and no one will stop him in carrying this matter through and he is going to make a success of it. In all modesty and humility I want to tell the hon the Minister: We as practical farmers will know that that is quite a mouthful, especially when we are dealing here with an industry which is dependent upon nature, the elements and powers above us on which we depend. In the second place, I want to tell the hon the Minister he will not make a success if he does not have the co-operation of the farmers.

Did you listen to what I said?

Yes. The hon the Minister will not be able to achieve success with his and the Government’s extremely arrogant attitude towards the farmers of South Africa. [Interjections.]

It is true that the State President has announced an additional amount of R100 million as aid to the farmers. It will probably be in the form of loans. This announcement came after the maize crisis had developed, and I want to make so bold as to say it is the result of that maize crisis.

The State President has announced that this R100 million is for all the farmers in South Africa. With reference to that I want to tell this hon Minister they should not have granted a loan of R100 million to the farmers. The farmers’ position should have been such that an announcement should not have been necessary to offer additional aid of R100 million. The prices received by the farmers should have been such that they themselves could have salvaged the situation. This is further proof—and every week and every month there is further proof—-of how the Government withdraws its hand from the farmers of South Africa. I do not know whether or not the hon the Minister received the figures for all the members of farmers’ groups of all parties of the South African Agricultural Union, but in those figures, which entailed many hours’ work and research, it is indicated very clearly that the crop fanners of the summer grain areas of South Africa are in the worst position of all farmers in South Africa. The cattle farmers are second in line, whereas the winter grain farmers are in the best position.

Now the hon the Minister says that when he arrived in the Northern Transvaal, he found that the people wanted to take out bushes and plant maize.

Yes.

It is because they are desperate. It is because those people cannot make a living that they clutch at straws to see whether or not they can make a living. It is because this Government has withdrawn its hand from the farmers of South Africa. [Interjections.]

You were still in the Government then.

In this whole controversy in respect of the maize affair and the announcement of the R100 million, there is one real fact that was never made known in the whole dispute which took place. This is the fact that the Government was evading its obligations. It is true, after all, that that hon Minister’s colleague—the hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics and of Water Affairs who is sitting here—told the Maize Board that the handling costs, the storage costs, the financing costs and the board’s margin are for the Government’s account. This is for the Government’s account. Those costs are R266 million. The Government made only R100 million available for that, however.

If the Government had fulfilled its obligation, at least it could have managed to do the second thing it had promised. That second thing said by the hon the Minister—which is not true either—was that the Government wanted to protect the consumers as well as the other farmers. He increased their price by 10% and then still says he wanted to protect them! If, however, he had used that amount for which the State was responsible, …

The R100 million?

If the Government had contributed the R166 million, it would not have had to increase the price. Once it had increased the price by 10%, however, and had fulfilled its obligation, the producer could also have received a 10% increase. It would have relieved his position immensely.

What about the producer who does not have a harvest?

Perhaps the producer who does not have a harvest had a harvest the previous year; or possibly he will have one next year. [Interjections.] If that is the way that hon Minister argues, I want to tell him that there are producers every year who do not have a harvest. If that is his argument, surely he should not determine any price. After all, every year there is someone who does not make a harvest. During the course of years, these occurrences cancel one another. The point, however, is that that hon Minister did not fulfil his promise to the Maize Board. Now I want to say I believe he wanted to fulfil it, but he is sitting in a Cabinet which does not make it possible for him to keep his promise. What should have happened here, was not for the Maize Board to resign, but for the Minister to do so. It is the Minister who should have resigned!

I?

Yes, the hon the Minister should have resigned.

Oh!

Yes, the hon the Minister should have resigned.

But I am still sitting here.

Yes, he is still sitting here. [Interjections.] I read in the newspapers that the hon the Minister had said he would not do a certain thing, for his position would suffer. He is more worried about his position than about the farmers in whose cause he is here!

That is not true.

Of course it is true. He does not have the courage to stand up and fight for the farmers. If the eight members of the Maize Board had the courage to fight for the farmers, I ask the hon the Minister: What is the matter with you? Why do you not have the courage? The hon the Minister does not have the courage. [Interjections.]

If the hon the Minister had done his duty and the State had not evaded its duty, the producer could also have received at least a 10% increase. He knows just as well as we do that the producer receives less than it costs him to produce the maize. The price he is receiving this year, is less than his production costs.

At what yield?

At the yield of the 6,72 million tons of maize that are expected, the price is less than it costs the farmers to produce that harvest.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that in this year in which the farmers are experiencing their fourth year of drought and where their debts have risen to extreme heights, the State expects the farmer who is on his knees to subsidize the consumer with more than the State does. Then the hon the Minister says we must protect the soil. That is wonderful, but one cannot tell people who are on their knees that they have to protect the soil. I want to tell the hon the Minister something else. That R100 million should not have been a loan. The price should have been such that it should not have been a loan, but it illustrates the hon the Minister’s attitude. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister wants to enslave the farmers. They now have to apply for loans, for the Government wants to get hold on the farmers of South Africa. [Interjections.] The fanners have to become indebted to the Government, for the Government knows this is that part of South Africa…

You want to enrich certain farmers with the R100 million and impoverish others.

What is the hon the Minister saying? Does he say the farmers want to be enriched? [Interjections.] I say I want to help the farmers to rid themselves of their burden of debt.

You want to enrich certain farmers and impoverish others. That is what you want to do.

I say I want to help the fanners to rid themselves of their debt, to be able to lift their heads and to control their own affairs once again, but the hon the Minister wants to enslave them. [Interjections.] He wants to force them to come to the Government so that they can no longer think independently, for he knows that the farming population is that part of the South African community which is self-sufficient, which has a character of individualism, which does not allow itself to be prescribed to and which was the greatest asset South African has ever had. That is the farmers of South Africa. It does not suit the Government politically, however, for the farmers to think for themselves. The Government does not want the farmers to think for themselves; they must be enslaved so that the Government can take a firm hold on them and can prescribe what they should do. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not want to become involved in this dispute, for I take it the hon the Minister will reply to the hon member for Lichtenburg. [Interjections.]

Order!

He reminded me this afternoon, however, of the tag wrestling teams, who grab one another inside and outside the ring and kick and hit whatever gets in the way. [Interjections.] The hon member gave me another impression too, viz of the man who killed his mother and his father and then pleaded in court for mitigation because he was an orphan. [Interjections.]

The hon member referred to the arrogance and the self-assurance of the Government and the hon the Minister. Did the hon member want the hon the Minister to submit the plan about the National Grazing Strategy and say: Excuse me chaps, here it is now, try it? [Interjections.] The Minister has to give guidance after all. He has to be full of enthusiasm when he announces a plan in this House. It is this very Government to which the hon member is referring as an arrogant Government which has brought about so much stability in our country that if one compares the intensity of this drought with that of 1933, few farmers have had to leave their farms. Even if we were to carry out all the regulations in the White Paper on Agricultural Policy and take all the precautions, we can still not prevent the effect of a prolonged drought in this country. Drought is difficult because it does not occur in fixed cycles and because one cannot determine its duration. If it coincides with an economic slump such as we have just experienced, the drought is much more intense.

I actually want to express a thought about the utilization of drought aid, in other words the methods used to utilize it effectively.

The principle of a nuclear herd during a period of drought is a very sound and good principle—but only in the short term. When a drought continues for longer than five years, however, the farmer begins to develop problems for the producer simply has to produce to make a living. He cannot produce properly with only a nuclear herd. This causes socio-economic problems, which naturally require other measures of assistance.

In the normal course of farming, animals breed naturally. A plan has to be made with this breeding because we have to maintain the carrying capacity determination. We have to honour these as a return for the aid supplied to our farmers by the Government. I want to assert that if we had made more effective use of the loans of almost R19 million granted from 1 April 1984 to 31 January 1985, as well as the subsidies of almost R60 million, and the additional more than R10 million’s transport rebate, we would have obtained better results. This brings me to the further assertion that we have to find a method to channel subsidized drought fodder to co-operative feedlots. In this respect I should like to associate myself with what the hon the Minister himself said. He put it in more or less the following words. It is inter alia necessary for the preservation of the production potential of natural grazing, for supplementary and alternative animal production strategies to be determined, which are not only or mainly dependent on natural established pasture. That is where the idea of feedlots as a method originated.

Individual farmers are simply of all financially capable of establishing proper facilities. Nor do all of them have the knowledge to do so. The slump in the karakul industry in the North-Western Cape and the partial change-over to meat production there led to the idea of one of the co-operatives to erect a co-operative feedlot of this nature.

I now want to refer to a few of the results according to the particulars of the co-operative concerned. I do it with their permission, however. They erected a feedlot in 1983—which could deal with 2 500 small stock units. Initially the support for this was very hesitant, but as the farmers realized what speedy fattening meant to them, the demand increased to such an extent that farmers’ names had to be placed on a waiting list. Within a period of 18 months they let altogether 28 500 small stock units through that feedlot. At the moment the co-operative is enlarging the feedlot so that it can cope with 5 000 small stock units at a time.

As a result of the improved and more scientific feeding methods and the use of substitute feeds they were capable of increasing the price of the small stock concerned by 19% from the first to the third feeding period, whereas the floor price of meat during the same period was increased by only 11%. If we accept that in Upington most farmers are an average of 100 kilometres away from the buying centre, the saving which was effected on the transport of fodder for those 28 000 small stock units alone, amounted to R8 000 altogether.

I know there are objections to speculation, especially when it concerns drought feeding by means of feedlots. That is why I want to stress the very fact that it must be a co-operative feedlot, because in a co-operative feedlot the animal remains the property of the farmer until it is sold and the profits come back to the farmer. If I may briefly point out the benefits involved, the following appear to be the major ones: The more scientific utilization of fodder, substitute feeds which can be used, the withdrawal of stock from the veld—the grazing capacity therefore decreases—saving of transport costs, orderly marketing by means of uniform or gradual provision, effective disease control, and also the effective utilization of facilities.

My request then is that the Government give favourable consideration to the channeling of drought fodder by feedlots. Co-operatives are the extension of the farmers themselves. All the profits gained here, return to the farmers. That is why no speculation will take place in this case.

Mr Chairman, much of what the hon member for Gordonia said I have no quarrel with. I believe he made some very practical points. I would also like to take this opportunity of associating myself with what my hon colleague for Mooi River said about the hon the Minister and his staff in this own-affairs Department of Agriculture. I must say that the intensity of the hon the Minister’s feelings about natural pasture and his knowledge of circumstances particularly in the small-stock industry in the Eastern Cape is of value in this department, because unless one has real feeling for those aspects—and I think that should apply not only to the Karoo but also to the grassveld which also has a tremendous role to play in this regard—one is really not going to get right down to the grass roots,—in this case—in more ways than one.

I should like to comment on the document on the national grazing strategy. Without being wise after the event, I would say that so much in here is so logical that one wonders why we have not been applying this all the time. In fact, one poses the question: What has the department been doing all this time? In the early fifties and after World War II there was a great upsurge of interest in soil conservation amongst the farmers. There were lively discussions and there were committees going around from farm to farm. There was a general participation and involvement in the whole question of conservation farming. Then, as a result, I think, of a series of bad decisions relating to the structure of those committees, one became remote from the farmer in his own particular area and this project seemed to lose ground and lose the personal impact that it had in the early days.

Let me indicate what one of the points is that worries me in this regard. If one looks at the Marais Commission on agriculture of 1966 and at the White Paper, one finds that they all say the same thing, and I want to ask the hon the Minister and the department: How are you going to implement this? The Act dealing with conservation is, itself, an enormously powerful Act. It is, however, the implementation of it that is going to determine its success or failure. The department at this stage is like an inverted pyramid. It has boffins galore at the top, wonderful people, all committed to agriculture, but when it comes down to the man in the field and the number of men in the field, one is looking at the point of the pyramid. That is, however, where the action has to take place in regard to this strategy.

The only solution I can offer—as a party we never criticize without offering solutions—is that, apart from the intention referred to in the document to launch a recruiting campaign, which in itself is not, I think, going to have the sort of success we are seeking unless we promise people the earth, we have to use the farmers themselves. That is where the great mass of people are whom we can use to implement this. That means that we are going to have to concentrate very considerably on the educational aspect down to the small-community level, particularly in grazing areas. We will have to re-inculcate in people an enthusiasm and a desire to participate in a campaign to save our natural veld, the greatest asset South Africa has as regards farming. I think that the strategy in respect of the implementation is far more important than the contents of this document, because that is where we have always failed: It is a question of how we are to implement it. I think that the more we can discuss this and the more flexible and open-minded we can be about exactly how we are going to attain these goals, the greater will be the success we achieve.

In regard to training, I want to go on to a further point along the same fines. If one looks at the results at our agricultural colleges, one finds that we have lagged behind when it comes to adopting an inventive and initiative-filled approach to ensure that every young farmer who goes on to the land is at least armed with better knowledge—obviously, on average—than previous generations.

When one looks at the statistics, what is the situation one finds at the five agricultural colleges in South Africa? For instance, in 1983 Grootfontein had an application figure of 95, an acceptance figure of 62 and a pass rate of 44 students. That means that of the original 95 applicants, only 50% of those young men who wanted a better agricultural education actually received it. One finds exactly the same situation at all the colleges during any given year. In 1983, of 770 applicants, only 410 were accepted, of whom only 300 passed. That means that of 770 potential farmers we had only 300 successful students. There were 430 who wanted to go into farming and wanted to be better educated in order to be able to meet the requirements of this industry, who were not able to do so. One can argue that they went back to college the next year and that is another question which I want to touch on now.

I think that the whole system at agricultural colleges needs to be looked at again thoroughly. It needs a whole rethink. It is part of our tertiary education system, parallel with technikons and other such institutions in the country. Agricultural colleges have become too inflexible and have not kept pace with the times. They are dealing largely with young men who have spent two years in the army, as other institutions have to do as well, I admit, and with a year’s farming experience. In many cases those lads have been away on the border with the result that they are a little bit older than in the past. Because of the rules and regulations at those agricultural colleges coupled with the actual curricula and the methods they apply, I do not think the best use is made of the material available to them, even on the basis of those figures that I have indicated. I shall tell hon members why I think so.

Firstly, we do not work on a semester basis. A lad goes into college, and if he does not make the “winter culling” as they call it in June, he has to leave the college. There is no system whereby he can rewrite the course with an incoming group in June as is the case at a technikon. If he does pass that exam but does not make it at the end of the year—in other words, he may have completed the first semester successfully but he does not make it during the second semester—he has to leave and is refused re-entry. We already have very low intake figures, as I have indicated, and now we are losing that lad who has passed half of the first year but who has failed in the second half. If there was a semester system, he could rewrite that part of the semester. We would have a far better through-put and we would also cope with bridging this gap of two years these lads have spent doing military service. I think we need to look at the flexibility of that system and concentrate more on a semester system.

I know there are some old traditions at the agricultural colleges. There are people who have been there for years who are almost institutions themselves, it could be that they are part of the problem. We need to have a new look at how we are going to encourage more young people, not only to be accepted at agricultural colleges—that means expansion—but also, when they get there, to complete the course and pass it successfully. To do that, I believe we are going to have to have a wider range of subject choices and better co-ordinated courses. One will find that so many of these lads are particularly unenthusiastic about soil science, for example. That is probably the most hated subject at agricultural college with the result that they do not pass soil science. Then all the knowledge that they may have on other subjects is wasted.

I suggest that we should put together more courses as they do at technikons involving other subjects so that they have a subject choice. I see the hon the Deputy Minister is having a quiet smile about this. Maybe he battled with soil science too! Nevertheless, I believe it is quite possible to put together a better subject choice with a wider range of different subjects to accommodate these lads and introduce a semester system. By so doing, and with a bigger intake, we can very quickly get a wave of new young trained farmers. I think we should couple that to a mobile educational approach in the rural areas so as to encourage the farmers to assist the Government with this national grazing strategy. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for King William’s Town will understand if I do not carry on where he left off, as I want to speak about something else. Actually I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South earlier in the debate, viz that he believes that in future production will come increasingly from irrigation areas, with which I agree. He also expressed the fear that competition from the urban complexes for water is going to create problems for us in future, and I shall return to this later. He asked for the more effective utilization of irrigation water, which, of course, is correct. If, however, he speaks of a market related price for irrigation water, I think he should define to us exactly what he means. These days the question as to what the farmer can afford in this connection is more relevant.

Once we have spoken about all this, I must point out that there is no point if the water is not available. In his commentary on the White Paper on Agricultural Policy in the RSA, the SAAU says that as a result of unstable water provision, certain areas experience problems from time to time. During these drought periods the sources of supply and supplementary resources are insufficient. The result is that irrigation droughts arise, especially in the established irrigation areas where this is experienced to an increasing degree. The State places a high priority on the urban, mining and industrial sectors, which makes irrigation extremely vulnerable when restrictions are introduced. I assert that in that case one can even experience calamity in these irrigation areas. During such times there are additional problems such as the soil’s becoming brackish and the poor quality of available water as a result of mining and industrial waste and pollution and incorrect farming practices. All this can lead to the destruction of irrigation land which can be noticed here and there already.

The funds for the development of irrigation areas are not available and in any case are not a priority in the country’s present economic condition. Although one has great understanding for the State’s point of view and its financial problems, one must point out that this point of view was held even in the good times when we were better off financially. I therefore want to warn timeously that the backlog that has been built up and is continuing to build up, will be very difficult to eliminate, should this ever be possible.

Where agriculture and especially irrigation farmers can, will and must play a great and important role in regional development, it is even more of a pity that development in this sphere has come to a standstill. In addition it so happens that the development of certain areas, especially the metropolitan areas, threatens the continued existence of irrigation areas. This uneven development which is taking place in our country at present as a result of the attraction of the metropoles of which the best known is the PWV area, really place these large and intensive irrigation areas in danger. This phenomenon will become more acute in future.

A strong case is to be made for the development of new irrigation areas. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South said the water should be brought to the wetter parts. Perhaps that is logical, but I do not think it is always easily applicable. If we do this, it must take place in a well-considered and planned manner, for it can only be done by supplying sufficient irrigation water on a permanent basis, which in turn requires thorough long-term planning. This will not only ensure the continued existence of the farmers of such areas, but will hold a particular number of advantages for the country. If water is brought to the irrigation areas, existing agricultural development there will become more intensive. If water is brought to existing areas, no one is being enriched or excessively enriched. In existing areas the infrastructure, of which water distribution is most expensive, already exists. The necessary expertise, which can be refined there more easily by mean of more sophisticated and more intensive irrigation methods, is there already. What is very important to us in decentralization, is that thousands of small business undertakings throughout our country are dependent upon a stable irrigation area. It is clear, therefore, that there are important reasons for these existing irrigation areas to be extended. I should like to refer to the Theewaterskloof scheme as an example. Only two years ago the department said the main distribution could not be done because—as they put it—there was a lack of funds and the scheme did not have high priority because of a limited market for the products cultivated. Excuse me if I say that is an absurd argument, for our export fruit reaches record prices overseas and we still have to import products such as olives and nuts. Surely that is not a correct statement. The simple truth is that the State can make no better investment than to build these distribution systems.

In the case of the Theewaterskloof scheme the water is already lying there unutilized and it earns no money for the State. In the meantime these farmers fear—as in other schemes—that urban use will make an increasing demand on this available irrigation water which is unutilized and not being distributed. In the end this scheme will take exactly the same course as so many other schemes are taking. I therefore want to request that we should think again, seriously, about our country’s irrigation farming. We accept our country’s financial condition, but that need definitely not prevent us from planning and even now setting priorities for the day when money will be available. It does not prevent us from planning properly and thoroughly.

While there is no money, perhaps we should begin anew and think radically: What is really wrong with letting unemployed people build canals and dams by hand instead of using expensive machinery? One will have created men who are earning. They will have incomes for themselves and their families instead of lying idle and perhaps moving to the cities where in the end they may have to live from theft and robbery. My plea, therefore, is for continued planning, an assurance in respect of existing irrigation areas, brand-new ideas and the setting of priorities for our future in respect of irrigation.

I do not want to dwell on the contribution by the hon member for Wellington for too long because I am not really acquainted with the irrigation problems in the Western Cape. However, I think we should realize that in this country we have to establish priorities in respect of our water supplies. I know there are people who are already saying that either the Vaalharts area or the PWV area is going to receive the water and they say it will probably be the PWV area because they need the water more, since the contribution of the PWV area to the country’s economy is greater than that of the Vaalharts area. I do not want to get involved in that debate but I think this is the sort of choice we shall be faced with in respect of the future of our country. These are grave problems.

I do not know which of the two Ministers is the cleverest, whether it is the one who deals with general affairs or the one who deals with own affairs, because when one looks at the budgets of these departments under the present dispensation one sees that the hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics has about R577 million to spend, of which R497 million will be going towards transfer instalments. Thus he has a budget of about R80 million while the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply has a budget of about R422 million and the Coloured and Indian Ministers have only R8 million. We also see that the agriculture budget for the independent and self-governing states is only R260 million. It seems to me that what has happened is that the department of Agricultural Economics has become a general affairs department while Agricultural Technical Services now falls under White own affairs. The hon the Minister has to spend far more money on our White commercial agriculture than the hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics. All he gets are resignations from the Maize Board!

In passing, I want to say to my friends on my left and those on my right, the hon members of the CP, that there are not only maize farmers in South Africa. I do not want to say that I am glad that the price has not been increased but, as a stock farmer, I must say that I am relieved that the increase was not as high as the one that was requested.

Tell us about your goats.

At least I am running my farm at a profit, and that is more than I can say for the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. [Interjections.] Also, I am not building up such an expensive administration.

I think we are all delighted about the hon the Minister’s announcement about a grazing strategy for South Africa. I believe that we have made great progress in this country. This also applies to the farmers in general. When one considers the contributions that are being made to the debates in the House of Assembly these days, both from our side and from the Government side—I am not referring to the contributions by hon members on my left—one notices that debates are being conducted on a high level. There has also been an increase in the general education level. In a previous debate the hon member for Wellington mentioned how well the farmers in the Western Cape were qualified academically. He was, of course, referring to White farmers.

We see improved techniques everywhere. In Natal one seldom sees the veld being burnt during autumn. When they do bum the veld, they do so in spring. In the Free State, unfortunately, one sees that they still burn the veld in autumn.

Even our field husbandry techniques have improved considerably. Therefore, I do think we have made progress. I think it is a tragedy that some of the predictions made by the Jacobs Committee years ago are now coming true. I think we shall have to act fast if we want to do something about it.

†What concerns me and this side of the House about agriculture in general is how we are going to achieve the goals which the hon the Minister has set. I read from the report under the section “Development of entrepreneurship” a fantastic goal as regards the extension objectives of the department. Other hon members, particularly the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South, referred to the problems of extension which are related to the question of the enforcement of a grazing pattern. This is very important in South Africa because, as the hon the Minister rightly pointed out, about 80% of our surface area available to agriculture can be used for grazing only and for no other purpose. It is vital therefore that we relate extension and the administration thereof through the appropriate legislation to the conservation of agricultural resources.

All farmers received circulars from the department pointing out that there was to be an executive officer who would enforce certain very stringent and strict rules. He would also have the power to do that. I want to ask the hon the Minister how he is going to staff that situation because the experience which we all have with extension officers is that they are all overworked or else they are very young and inexperienced. They work for a year or two and then they go to the Army for two years. Thereafter they come back for a year and they enroll at a university to do an M Sc course. At that stage we lose them. I believe that the extension service is breaking down.

I believe that this whole situation is related to the application of this project in regard to the conservation of agricultural resources. I do not want the hon the Minister to misunderstand us, but I remember that the previous member for Schweizer-Reneke who later became a Deputy Minister of Development used to say: Talk is cheap but money buys whiskey. It is easy for us to say all these nice things. We have been saying nice things. I remember that when I was a small boy we had the Green Cross year. We travelled on buses and we bought little tags about soil erosion. That was how bad the position as regards soil erosion was.

We have to mean what we say if we are going to apply this thing. As far as we are concerned, the hon the Minister has to spell out an effective programme to this House as to how he is going to recruit and motivate the staff, and how he is going to get qualified staff and back them up to ensure that those difficult farmers who are not prepared to cooperate—they are not in the majority but they are the critical marginal farmers who are actually destroying our country for future generations—can be brought into line. How are we in fact going to enforce that position?

The extension service has broken down—and I think this is the classic example—partly because of the emergence of extension services through our co-operative, fertilizer societies and others. I believe that as a matter of urgency the hon the Minister ought to institute a special inquiry into ways in which the extension service can work more effectively. I believe short day-courses could well be more useful. Maybe extension officers should see their function rather as training officers and let the executive officer who has to deal with the conservation of agricultural resources do the planning side. Maybe there should also be an economic advisory office—which was what the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South was referring to—because the banks are now offering advice and the co-operatives are all starting production units or extension services.

Maybe what the hon the Minister should do is to have a look at the sugar industry which runs its own extension service very efficiently and effectively without Government assistance. Allied with that, there is a training service to train labour and to improve efficiency in that very well-organized little industry where they have organized themselves. Maybe one should also look at the prospect of more farm trials. A further possibility is to establish regional training centres to which farmers can go. In Natal, for example, Cedara offered a short course on pastures. They were expecting something like 180 farmers to attend but over 600 farmers turned up. At Dundee they ran a course on beef and the use of veld—also on the reinforcing of veld. I think they were expecting about 200 farmers but 450 arrived. There is obviously a concern among farmers to learn. I believe that perhaps more emphasis should be placed on training and that the use of the research farms etcetera would be more effective for extension purposes. I believe the whole aspect of extension has to be looked at with new eyes. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to follow upon the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. I should like to support the idea he expressed in respect of the information service for agriculture in South Africa and the problems in this regard, for there are problems. Unfortunately these are not problems that are easily solved. It is true that we in this country have enough knowledge and information at our disposal, but the problem is to convey that knowledge and information so that it can be applied in practice. That is the crux of the matter. It is not so easy, however, to find the correct officials to convey the knowledge and information.

I should like to return to the main theme of the debate, viz the strategy to protect our available natural pastures. It is true that the pastures in this country are in a very poor condition. This is not only as a result of droughts. The main reason is that too many animals are kept. I scratched around in the statistics, and used the statistics of 1983 as a basis. We made calculations in respect of the number of animals that can be kept on the veld throughout the Republic. We also looked at dip figures. If the sum is made in the end, and all the figures have been processed, to compensate for all the animals on established pastures, one finds a frightening figure. Once the addition and subtraction has been done in respect of the number of animals South Africa can sustain in theory, and the number we have in reality is subtracted from that, it appears that in total there are three million large stock units too many in South Africa. If that figure is converted to small stock units, by multiplying it by the normal conversion factor of six, it means that there are 18 million small stock units too many in South Africa. That is a frightening figure, is it not? Even if my calculation is 50% wrong, it still means there are 1,5 million large stock units or nine million small stock units too many.

If we take a demarcated area, such as the Karoo Midlands, the North-Eastern part of the Karoo and the North-Western part of the Karoo, which are experiencing drought conditions, we find that theoretically speaking, according to carrying capacity, 6,9 million units of small stock can be sustained. In practice there are 10,1 million units of small stock—3,2 million too many, therefore, especially in areas which are experiencing drought conditions. If one evaluates these figures in terms of the continued existence of the grazing, our grazing has no chance of survival. I therefore should like to support this new strategy to repair our grazing-lands.

A great problem is that many of the farmers who own property confuse right of ownership with right of disposal. They think that because land is their property, they can do with it as they like. Right of ownership is not a right of disposal, and an owner cannot do with his land as he likes. If a farmer exerts his right of ownership to improve his land, the State will not interfere. When, however, the farmer utilises his right of ownership in the opposite direction, the State must interfere. We have reached a point today where we have to do so.

To make this strategy run smoothly, a few points will have to be noted. The new norms in respect of carrying capacity have been determined scientifically, and are more lenient than the old norms. There are practical problems in connection with the borders between areas. Often divisional councils or magisterial districts determine the borders, and then there is a great discrepancy between the carrying capacity of one farm and that of the following, merely because they fall in different districts. I argue that transitional areas should be instituted, in which the carrying capacity is systematically adapted as it differs from one area to another.

In homogeneous areas adjustments should be possible to compensate for valley farms and marginal farms, as well as for dust-bowl farms and looked-after farms. If a general norm is laid down, the pirate farmer merely receives the advantage once again. These are small adjustments, but they will determine whether or not the system is successful. As a whole I think, however, we are on the right course and if everything is applied, there is hope for the future.

Another point is the standardisation of norms in respect of carrying capacity. At present four definitions of carrying capacity norms are applied in South Africa. The law determines that one large stock unit is equivalent to six small stock units. A lamb counts as 0,5 of a small stock unit at birth.

In a departmental document—it is No 1 of 1984, Schedule B—it says that one large stock unit is equivalent to six meat or dual purpose sheep over six months, seven wool sheep over six months or seven karakul sheep over six months. That is a second definition.

If the form for drought aid has to be filled in, there is another definition. In this case one large stock unit is equivalent to six small stock units and no distinction is drawn between races.

For soil conservation aid there is a fourth definition: One large stock unit is equivalent to six small stock units, but then there a differentiation is made between large sheep and year-old sheep.

At some stage the whole system will have to be standardized so that there is only one definition, otherwise it is confusing, for it means that the same farm has different carrying capacities according to the different definitions. This makes it impossible to exert control.

Another question concerns the definition of an economic unit. At present we define an economic unit on the grounds of numbers—a farm big enough to accommodate 1 200 sheep. It is not the numbers, however, which determine the income, but the income per animal which determines whether or not it is economical. The income per animal is not determined by the animals themselves, but by the farmers’ ability to administer those animals. Their expertise and skill are in question.

The definition of an economic unit must therefore centre around the farmer and not around the animal. We should rather speak, therefore, of economical and uneconomical farmers. Whether a farmer has a small piece of land or a large piece, the determining factor will have to be what he makes of it and how he lives there. I know of big farmers who are uneconomical and I know of small farmers who are very economical, who send their children to university and lead a normal existence. Every year they even buy a new motorcar, whereas there are big farmers on large pieces of land who cannot do so. That is so; it is true! [Interjections.]

There is a further aspect which I should like to draw to the attention of the hon the Minister. It is a drought success story. A while ago the hon the Minister opened a water scheme at Douglas. This scheme has a very interesting story. Those farmers are at the bottom end of the Vaal River, and when the Vaal River was subjected to water restrictions, those farmers got hardly any water for irrigation. The water they did get was brackish and consisted of seepage. The 10% of the normal quota that they could use, made the ground brackish and the plants died. State aid was requested, but because of financial conditions the State could not help them. Those farmers did not wear sackcloth and ashes, however. The co-operative took the initiative and started making plans. In the end they built an emergency scheme. It was an emergency scheme that was imperative, otherwise the whole community would have perished. The farming would have come to a halt, unemployment would have followed, and in the end it would have cost the State millions of rands—as was the case in Riet River—to get the infrastructure going again and merely to keep the people alive. The people of Douglas went and built a scheme at their own expense with the means at their disposal. The scheme consists of a pumping-station, with six pumps, on the banks of the Orange River, and there is a pipeline of 1,5 metres in diameter which has been laid over a distance of 850 metres. The water has been raised by 66 metres and 7 cubic metres of water is pumped per second. They have built a canal that is 24 kilometres long. The financing was obtained from the Land Bank, and every farmer who is part of the scheme has to pay R200 per hectare. In this way they have saved the whole area from ruin. In the process they saved the Vaal scheme 6% water so that 6% more water has now been made available higher up along the Vaal scheme.

The fine thing about this whole undertaking is that it fits into the long-term planning of the department and is not an unnecessary scheme which would come to a standstill the moment it rained. The department can continue with it. Now I ask—as the farmers are saving the State a great deal of money in this respect and have also made extra water available to the Vaal complex—for consideration to be given to the capital amount which the farmers have in fact secured for the creation of infrastructure, which now places an extra burden on the farmers. In my view it is not quite right for the cost of the infrastructure to be borne by the farming community alone. I think the State should also have a share in the creation of infrastructure, especially when it places such an immense capital burden on the farming community. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon member for Prieska. He is an authority in his field and for that reason it is always a great pleasure to listen to him.

I should like to exchange a few ideas with hon members about the importance of agriculture in the Eastern Cape. The interdependence of the agricultural industry of the Eastern Cape and the metropolitan areas of Port Elizabeth, Uitenhage, East London and Berlin is an indisputable reality about which no-one could have any doubt. Agriculture in the Eastern Cape is the most important resource of the Eastern Cape and we believe that for that reason it should be developed to the maximum extent. Not only is the agricultural industry the biggest employer, particularly of unskilled labour; it is also widely recognized to be the cheapest supplier of employment to those people. If, in addition to this, we take into account the high unemployment rate—both urban and rural—in the Eastern Cape, the importance of agriculture to that region becomes even more cardinal. Accordingly it is a great privilege to convey a special word of thanks and appreciation to the Government on behalf of the Eastern Cape and its inhabitants for the comprehensive development plans announced by the State President with regard to various irrigation schemes in the Eastern Cape. It goes without saying that it is specifically a lack of water, either permanent or periodical, which is the greatest single limiting factor as regards agricultural production. I do not wish to dwell at this point on the details of these schemes—they have been announced in detail—except to say that in my opinion we cannot imagine what these developments are in fact going to mean for the Eastern Cape and its people. I should like to mention a few interesting figures to hon members that will indicate the importance of agriculture in the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage region. I mention Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage because I have the figures for this region. The following products were sold in that region during 1983-84. I shall divide them into two parts, the first being exports. Under this heading falls wool—49% of the total production of which is shipped from Port Elizabeth—which yielded R155 million. Angora was not far behind.

Order! Hon members must not converse so loudly.

For the information of the hon the Minister, it yielded R125 million. It is interesting to mention that 20 Eastern Cape districts produce 82% of South Africa’s total angora clip. Citrus, chicory and tobacco yielded R35 million.

On the other hand, there are the products consumed locally. Milk yields revenue of R60 million, meat R41 million, vegetables R20 million and grain approximately R10 million. This gives a total of approximately R449 million. To that must still be added the fruit of the Langkloof, the vegetable market at Uitenhage, the production of cash crops in the Fish River Valley and the vegetables processed in the refrigeration plant. Moreover, we can also assume that large quantities of vegetables reach the two cities without passing through the market. If one adds the poultry industry, one can safely say that products to the value of far more than R500 million have been sold in that region over the past year. Since the market in the region for summer products such as milk and vegetables has been saturated at the moment—by the way, Port Elizabeth is at present supplying milk to Cape Town—we are particularly pleased that development in the sphere of irrigation, which can be tackled immediately, will take place in regions that are particularly suited to the production of citrus, which is an export product.

The national development region D which comprises the hinterland of Port Elizabeth and East London is an extensive region of varying climatic and soil conditions. It consists of 44 magisterial districts with a total surface area of approximately 12 million hectares. Approximately 87% of this area—and this emphasizes the importance of our grazing in the area—is used for extensive stock farming, and we can state with certainty that the grazing is being grossly overexploited, as is the case in other parts of the country. In spite of all the veld conservation schemes, stock reduction schemes, studies of plant ecology and grazing research by our competent grazing researchers over the past number of years, we must draw the disturbing conclusion that our national grazing is degenerating drastically and rapidly. The hon the Minister pointed this out to us when he mentioned the percentages of 60%, 30% and 10%. In the five decades that grazing research has been carried out in South Africa almost all the basic, important and practicable grazing principles have been laid down. The hon member for Fauresmith has confirmed this. Experts go on to make the statement that there are sufficient researchers to do the work and that research is at present being focussed on the refinement of veld control schemes. When I say that I do not wish to detract from the prospect held out by the hon the Minister that more research must be done in future. I merely wish to emphasize that I am of the opinion, as other speakers have said, that sufficient research has been done in the past.

It is also maintained that the contribution made by grazing research to the terrain of ecology and animal production, particularly taking into account advanced grazing systems in the Republic of South Africa, is regarded as even greater than in the USA, and more progress has been made. There are several factors that bedevil results, but the biggest single factor is undoubtedly that of climate. Another major shortcoming—and I should like to emphasize this for the attention of the hon the Minister—is that thus far the economic implications have largely been ignored by researchers as far as the practical implementation of conservation systems is concerned. Even if researchers are convinced of the positive results that can be achieved by way of a sound grazing strategy, they are hesitant to venture economic predictions.

Thus far the emphasis has been placed on the social, not the economic aspects. This will have to change because after all, the economic aspect is primary.

The hon the Minister announced a national grazing strategy here today. He also gave notice of his determination to make it his life’s task to put this precious resource on the road to recovery. In this I wholeheartedly support him. I also support the point of departure that drought aid only be made available to those who comply with certain requirements as far as veld utilization is concerned. However, how do we solve this lack of acceptance of modern grazing control systems on the part of such a large section of our farming community? We could impose and implement coercive measures, but we shall certainly have to give more attention to the aspect of persuasion. In this regard I should like to join the ranks of those hon members who have broached this matter—the hon member for Barberton and the hon member Dr Odendaal. We shall have to give more attention to the aspect of persuasion.

The importance of an intensive and effective counselling service, which must necessarily lead to a more drastic programme of training and influencing of our farmers, has already been pointed out and cannot be sufficiently emphasized. I do also want to request that in this programme that is to be drawn up, special emphasis be laid on the economic aspect. After all, farming is a way of fife—a way of life that has to be economically justifiable. When the farmer does not earn enough money, his farming enterprise will cease to be a meaningful way of life for him.

We must install the message that ultimately it pays to conserve. We must see to it that this campaign succeeds and we on this side of the House give the hon the Minister and his department our full support in this regard.

Mr Chairman, on an occasion at Calitzdorp earlier this year the hon the Minister said that this lengthy drought had for the first time in history brought to the fore the importance of agriculture in South Africa. I want to take that statement of his somewhat further and contend that the drought also showed that as far as the supply of water is concerned—even in relatively well-watered areas, the drought can create a crisis situation.

In my constituency we had the case of two municipalities obtaining water from the same source as irrigation regions. The municipality of Tzaneen receives water and shares it with the irrigation board of Groot Letaba. The town council of Louis Trichardt obtains water from the Albasini Dam, water that is shared with the farmers in that region. Then, too, there is the Nzhelele Dam. However, this dam’s water is only used for irrigation purposes.

As far as all those regions are concerned, it is quite clear to me that at this stage—and at all times—careful attention must be given to the possibility of enlarging the storage capacity of dams in order to increase the guaranteed supply from those sources. I believe that this is the time to attend to these matters on an overall basis. Overall planning ought to be carried out on a regional basis. Attention must be given to all aspects of this matter, eg weirs in tributaries of rivers, even if the tributaries in question are situated below the dam walls.

As an example of this kind of thing I just wish to refer here to the main irrigation board of Groot Letaba which, on its own initiative, is itself investigating the construction of additional weirs in the Groot Letaba River, the building of crest gates at the Fanie Botha Dam and the construction of a third large storage unit in the river. I believe that this is a praiseworthy effort on their part, which deserves all possible support.

Turning from the subject of water, I want to say that as far as the drought is concerned, the hon the Minister knows that the stock farmers of the Northern Transvaal, particularly those behind the Soutpansberg, have probably been hardest hit of all. Now we have had wonderful rains. The veld has made a wonderful recovery. However, there are still not enough cattle and the farmers’ problems are far from solved. A survey by the cattle committee of the Agricultural Union, Soutpansberg district, carried out towards the end of 1984 among 21 respondents, indicated that the number of bulls had been reduced by 36,8%; the cow population by 62,3%; heifers, 2 years old, by 53,2%; heifers, 1 to 2 years old, by 58,7%; bullocks by 88,8%; and heifer calves under a year by 84,1%.

What about Nationalists?

Their numbers, too, have dwindled considerably. Sir, the burden of debt of those respondents has increased by 220%, and those respondents said that they calculated that it would take them 3,3 years to get their farms back onto a basis of full production. To do so, however, they needed 83 bulls, 3 109 cows, 993 heifers and 985 “tollies”. The hon the Minister knows that some of the biggest and most substantial farmers in that part of the world who have in fact never before had to approach the State for assistance are among those facing the most acute problems, and are now approaching the department for the first time.

We could elaborate on that crisis, but I do not believe it is necessary to do so. There are three points I should like to put to the hon the Minister for his consideration as far as the granting of assistance is concerned. The first point is that the ordinary criteria that apply in considering aid to a farmer, those relating to his security as such, must be relaxed in some way with a view to the emergency aid that must be provided. It is necessary to investigate whether there could not be some form of accommodation as far as the security aspect is concerned. What we are dealing with here is rehabilitation aid. I cannot provide a guarantee on behalf of those involved, but I want to say to the Division of Financial Assistance and to the Land Bank that they surely know those people well enough to know that they will eventually meet their obligations. That is the first point I want to make.

Secondly, I want to ask the hon the Minister personally to give very urgent consideration to expediting the proclamation of the extended designated area. I have a question on the Question Paper for next Tuesday in this regard. We know what the extended area will comprise and the position is that there are several people in that region for whom the time factor is extremely critical. The sooner that region is proclaimed, the sooner it will be possible to meet the needs of those people. In one of its reports the SA Agricultural Union states:

Accordingly I shall greatly appreciate it, and it would be very much welcomed, if the aspect of that proclamation could be finalized now.

As soon as that proclamation has been finalized it will be necessary to attend without delay to the cases which will then come up. I think that it will be necessary to make provision for temporary staff to finalize those cases without delay, because in some instances it is a question of a week or a day that will determine whether some of those farmers go under or not.

I want to conclude by saying that I do not believe that we should regard this aid to our farmers as charity. I do not believe it is a question of the enrichment of farmers, or of farmers who are becoming beggars. We know that our farming community is a proud one. This is a crisis situation in which they find themselves and they must be helped to overcome it now, for their sake too, but particularly for the sake of the provision of food to Southern Africa and the people of Southern Africa in the way to which we have become accustomed, and then also for the sake of the stabilization of the population of the rural areas to good strategic effect in so far as infiltration into this country by underminers is concerned.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon member for Soutpansberg. In fact he made a very reasonable speech. He discussed his constituency and referred to matters in such a way that as far as that is concerned, I really agree with him. I shall leave him at that.

This afternoon I want to focus on agricultural financing. On Friday, 13 February 1976—here I refer firstly to Hansard, 1976, col 1136—two private members’ motions were discussed in the House of Assembly—remember, this was nine years ago. The first was about the strategic role of the agricultural industry.

Order! Of all the hon members speaking simultaneously at the moment, the hon member for Winburg is speaking most quietly.

I am sorry, but I shall do my best. [Interjections.]

Order! There is nothing wrong with the way in which the hon member for Winburg was speaking; it is the other members who are conversing too loudly. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, I said that two private members’ motions were discussed. The second motion—it is to be found in col 1184—read:

1. (a) combating inflation; and
2. (b) increasing production.

On that day the following were among the hon members who participated in that debate; the hon member for Malmesbury—now the hon the Deputy Minister of Agricultural Economy—as well as the hon member for Graaff Reinet, who is at present the hon the Minister for Agriculture and Water Supply. The hon member for Bethal also took part in the debate and he is at present the hon the Minister of Agricultural Economy.

Unfortunately I do not have the time to quote what the hon the Minister said then but the general idea was that owing to the high inflation rate and interest rates, farmers were not in a position to replace capital goods and build up capital.

Those speeches could just as well have been made today, because what applied then applies today, too, but to a far worse degree.

It is interesting to draw a few comparisons. Nine years ago it was said that if anyone entered agriculture he would need capital of approximately R120 000 to R150 000 to obtain and run an economic farm. At the time interest rates on the open market varied between 11% and 13%. In those debates it was stated that interest rates were too high; no one could produce if the interest rates were so high. Today, nine years later, approximately R400 000 is needed to obtain and equip and economic unit and the interest rates vary between 24% and 30% on the open market. This is what inflation has done to us over a period of nine years.

The SA Agricultural Union has carried out an in-depth investigation into the financial situation of South African farmers. The data thus obtained are really unsettling. It was found that the financial situation of 61,3% of the farmers in the Republic of South Africa was such that they were unable to cover current expenditure from current revenue and were therefore unable to carry on without incurring additional debt.

What is the cause of these critical conditions in which fanners find themselves today. I venture to single out three causes in particular. The first is the drought. The drought has left its mark on farmers, but fortunately they have received a great deal of assistance as well. The second factor I want to mention is inflation and the third is high interest rates.

I wish to state clearly that we must not assume that the drought has now been broken. It has rained here and there and there has been relief here and there, but there are still places where the irrigation dams are empty and where the drought has not yet been broken. The authorities have introduced various drought aid measures, for which we are grateful.

Inflation has increased the risk of farming to such an extent that farmers are no longer able to recover from failed harvests.

Nowadays interest payments comprise the farmers’ single biggest item of expenditure. It is correct to say that everyone pays high interest rates. I concede that businessmen and industrialists are also subject to high interest rates but they can recover them by adding them to the price of goods.

Farmers in the summer rainfall region are engaged in a fight for survival and the authorities must help them in those fights. I want to appeal to taxpayers to have understanding for the assistance given to agriculture by the authorities. It is in the country’s interests that rural communities in particular should not go under. If the farmers were to leave their farms in large numbers, innumerable local business enterprises would also be unable to make a living and they, too, would have to leave. Eventually the result would be empty schools, empty business premises, empty dwellings and unemployment among farm labourers and workers in the towns.

It is interesting to note how agriculture is financed nowadays. According to an SAAU survey, commercial banks hold 30,2% of farming debt, agricultural co-operatives 23,5%, the Land Bank 17,6%, the Division of Financial Assistance 4,1% and all other sources 24,6%. I want to add at once that these data applied at the end of 1983 and that a substantial change could have occurred in 1984. The Division of Financial Assistance is being used to launch a rescue operation for applicants who cannot be assisted elsewhere. I want to ask the hon the Minister to find ways to expand this division. According to the annual report of the Department of Agriculture, 1 273 applicants were assisted with an average amount of R28 150 per applicant. From April 1984 to 31 December 1984 2 052 loans were granted for an average amount of R40 000 per applicant. I am aware that the maximum loan that can be granted is R50 000 per calendar year per applicant but due to the increase in input costs this amount is no longer sufficient. There are many farmers in the summer rainfall regions who produce a summer crop as well as a winter crop and I therefore want to request that the maximum loan be increased from R50 000 to R100 000 in order to accommodate these producers.

I want to conclude. There are going to be better days for agriculture. There will again be times when our food granaries are full. It is important that South Africa should produce enough food because food is the one thing that will shut the mouth of the loudmouthed agitator when he is dealing with hungry or semi-hungry people.

I want to refer briefly to the hon member for Lichtenburg … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow the hon member for Winburg. We must agree with him as far as interest and so on is concerned. Every sector of the agricultural history is facing problems in that regard nowadays.

I should also like to congratulate the hon the Minister on his appointment to this very important department. It is all the more of a pleasure, since he is also a stock farmer and referred a moment ago to the Karoo, to congratulate him, in that capacity. I want to link up with what hon members have said by expressing my thanks on behalf of the farmers of the North West, particularly the small stock farmers, for the aid they have received in recent years. In some of the districts they have been receiving assistance for seven years now. I have no doubt that had it not been for this aid given for so many years there would barely be a farmer left in large parts of this region.

The hon the Minister will know—since he himself comes from a small rural community—what an important role farming plays in the rural areas, because it is still the biggest employer and plays a part in the social structure by providing accommodation to farm labourers. In spite of this drought, and in difficult economic circumstances, the farmers have not yet dismissed employees, and every employee is still employed by his employer, who is complying with a major social obligation. Moreover, farmers provided medical services to their employees. That is why the agricultural sector is so important. At congresses and in their community life the farmers express their thanks and appreciation for this help they are receiving and I, too, want to express my sincere gratitude in this regard today.

Unfortunately I cannot express my thanks for the last time today for the assistance we have received because large parts of the North West are still in precisely the same circumstances. Help must still be provided to farmers there, and we do not know for how long. We wish to express the hope and confidence that when the agricultural debate comes up again one will be able to say: Thank you very much, the farmers’ plight has now been alleviated. One is also grateful to hear the standpoint adopted by the hon the Minister and his predecessor with regard to the issue of the promissory notes signed by the farmers. The farmers are deeply concerned about the promissory notes they signed which means that they have to pay off their fodder debt a year after it has rained. That is impossible. One of the farmers told me the other day that he would have to live for 120 years—he is now 50 years old—to be able to pay off his debt. This was said in a good spirit but it shows how debt has accumulated and is continuing to accumulate in recent times. We trust, as I have just said, that this, too, will come to an end.

I also wish to come back to the grazing capacity of the North West and the grazing strategy that has now been announced. As a Karoo farmer I am very grateful for that as well. I also wish to associate myself with speakers who have said here that due to economic circumstances but also, perhaps, due to misconceptions, the land is being abused. I believe that every true farmer with a love for the soil will want to hand that soil over to his children as a beautiful heritage. I therefore welcome better counselling, in the economic sphere as well, for the farmer of the North West. There are certain matters—the hon member for Prieska also referred to this—that are important, eg the refinement of these homogeneous areas. As far as carrying capacity, too, is concerned, there is one problem I want to mention. For example, provision is being made for a lamb of six months and older. I feel, for example, that a weight should be specified so that a lamb that is above or below a certain weight is counted or not counted, because the age of a lamb is often a matter of dispute.

Having said all this, and having pointed out how important agriculture is in the rural areas, I now come to homogenous delimitation, and I want to agree with the hon member for Prieska, who said: There is an economical farmer, our previous Minister of Agriculture said: “Wys my die jokkie.” It is true that a jockey can ride a horse well but if he lacks a horse he cannot take part in the race.

As we have heard on several occasions today, nowadays capital in agriculture is too expensive for land purchases, even through the Land Bank. If one takes the interest redemption and assurance into account it is an enormous sum. That, then is my pleas today: If we want to keep the young farmer, who is already in a financial crisis, on the land, we must make cheaper money available to him. The report of the SALU has indicated that it is the farmers under 35 years who have not yet built up a capital reserve, who have not yet fully found their feet. These are the farmers who are entering agriculture. I am now referring to the farmer who has proved that he can farm economically, to whom we should make money available more cheaply. It is an effect of the delimitation of the grazing areas and the grazing strategy that uneconomic units are going to come into being. We cannot allow these uneconomic units all to fall into the hands of the bigger farmer. I have nothing against the part-time farmer but we cannot allow this land, or so much land, to belong to a part-time farmer that the infrastructure in a community collapses. Therefore I regard it as a prerequisite that money be found to enable a farmer who has an uneconomic unit, to obtain land at a lower interest rate.

After years of experience we are finding that even succession is being made difficult as a result of drought conditions. The father simply cannot leave the farm to his son because his own capital has been used up during the drought. In any event, he has to carry on living. As a result he cannot put through the transaction of transferring his property to his son, even if he is a good farmer who has brought up his children there and given them an education. According to the judgment of the department, he has an uneconomic unit, with the result that the father-to-son transaction cannot be effected. I regard it as impetative, in accordance with the agricultural policy of keeping the maximum number of stock farmers on the farms, to make cheaper capital available to them.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Beaufort West has made an interesting speech. Apparently he comes from a sheep farming area which produces wool. That reminds me of the terrible tragedy we had in Britain this week when a football stadium caught alight and 52 people lost their lives. I think a lot of that was due to spontaneous combustion of their clothing which consist for a large part of synthetics. I think that if wool had been used in that particular clothing, the loss of life could actually have been less. The same happened in the television shots we saw of the Falklands war, where some of the destroyers that were attacked by missiles caught alight. The sailors’ clothes caught alight too easily because once again they were synthetics. I understand that, since that date, the British Navy has allowed only natural fibres for clothing for their sailors. I think we could all learn a lesson from that.

What I actually wanted to talk about was milk and all dairy products which, as we know, are controlled by the Dairy Board. As background I want to quote from The Financial Mail of 5 May 1985, as follows:

This is the problem of the dairy farmer. Their prices of course depend on the Dairy Control Board. Another problem is that the cost of inputs has been greatly increased because they need maize as a stock feed. They buy a lot of maize with the result that they have been very badly hit by the increases in the maize price over the past few years. There are other problems that the maize farmers cause the dairy industry, but I will get to those in due course.

There has been over-production in the dairy industry for some time and this has led to enormous losses, particularly on skimmedmilk powder. This House might be interested to know that in 1982, 1983 and 1984 there was an over-production of 22 920 tonnes of skimmed-milk powder in South Africa. Therefore, we have had to export. It costs us approximately R3 500 to produce one tonne of skimmed-milk powder and we sell it at one third of the cost when we export it. In other words, according to the figures I have from the hon the Minister, we export it at $615 per tonne which is approximately R1 230. We are losing R2,30 per kilogram or R2 300 per tonne. Our losses have amounted to R52,7 million on the export of milk powder.

It is interesting to note that in 1982 we had a surplus over our requirements of skimmedmilk powder of 10 000 tonnes and yet in that year the Dairy Board issued permits for the import of milk powder, which seems a little bit silly. The full horror of the situation is that this milk powder is exported to the Far East where it is used as a stock-feed, while in South Africa people are suffering from hunger and children are dying from proteindeficiency diseases such as kwashiorkor and marasmus. One only has to look at the report of the Quail Commission to see what has happened in that regard. At the time that this is happening the Japanese can buy our milk powder at R1,20 per kilogram to feed to their pigs. Yet, if the South African goes to his Kupegani shop, which is probably his cheapest source, he has to pay R2,56 for a kilogram of skimmed-milk powder.

Sir, if we are going to lose this enormous amount of money on skimmed-milk powder, let us at least allow our own people some benefit from it. I would suggest that we consider supplying school feeding schemes throughout the country with skimmed-milk powder at reduced prices. What better cause can there be?

Secondly, I would suggest that we supply rural and urban famine relief organizations, also at reduced prices and let the prices be comparable to the prices at which we supply Japan. Why should the Japanese pigs have the benefit of our cheaper prices?

The loss is funded by the milk farmers themselves and I believe that this is often done unfairly. In times of drought the maize farmers put their “misoeste” into the silage pits. They then buy cows, feed them out of the silage pits and produce milk. This results in an enormous over-production of milk. That is where the problem stems from. It is in years of drought that we have the enormous over-production of milk. The freshmilk producer then has to pay to subsidize the losses that are caused by this excess—the very farmer who does not have maize but who relies on milk for his living, and it is a hard job as the hon the Minister knows. This fanner’s only business is to supply milk, yet he has to pay 2 cents per litre of milk produced towards subsidizing this loss. The solution to the problem is patently to sell more milk in South Africa. If we are going to sell more milk, then quite obviously we have to market more milk to the Black population. This is where our real problem lies. I understand that in Soweto only 2 cubic centimetres of milk is used per head of the population per day. That is only one teaspoonful of milk per Black per day in Soweto. I think that that is appalling. There is a most enormous existing market and we must use that market. I do not say we must abuse it, but I believe it is to the benefit of the Blacks if, in Soweto and everywhere else, they were to drink more milk.

One of the problems is that in terms of the regulation today all our milk that is sold has to be pasteurized. Now we know that part of the Black’s culture is calabash milk or maas and one cannot make calabash milk or maas from pasteurized milk. The process just does not work. Therefore, the first thing that I would suggest in this regard is that we allow the sale of unpasteurized milk. I believe it should be clearly marked as such. If we are going to sell pasteurized milk, mark it as pasteurized milk. If we are going to sell unpasteurized milk, it must be served in a special bottle with a special label or whatever, but allow it to be sold.

The farmers’ milking parlours are modern, their herds are tested for TB, and there are health regulations for the dairy parlours. The testing for problems is quick and easy today so one can test the farmers’ milk almost instantaneously for problems.

We all grew up on unpasteurized milk in this country and we are a reasonably healthy lot. I do not believe there is any reason why we should be forced to drink pasteurized milk. The pasteurizing process and regulations are expensive. The fresh milk supplier in the Border area receives 37,5 cents on average for his fresh milk after the levy has been subtracted, yet that milk sells for more than double the price in the shops. Where does that money go to?

I would also like to recommend that milk be sold in bulk to entrepreneurs, particularly in the Black townships. They could come in their bakkies and buy ten-gallon cans of milk, for example. There are plenty of those cans about and they could buy them cheaply. They could take those cans into the townships and dispense milk to the population on the street corners. Everybody could come with his own jug and buy a litre or half a litre of pasteurized or unpasteurized milk at a time. I believe this would help the small businessman in the Black areas, it would help to supply more milk, and thirdly, I think it could be supplied more cheaply.

If the dairies supply milk at 45 cents which gives them an incremental profit of approximately 10% on the bulk milk that they are selling, the entrepreneur could probably sell it considerably cheaper than the Black could buy it in the local shop. I believe this could make a real contribution.

As he got bigger, he could buy a small truck with a stainless steel tank on the back. To ensure that it was clean, the dairy from which he bought his milk could steam-clean the tank before it supplies him with his next bulk purchase. The cleanliness could be there. I do believe the system would work. The milk that comes from the dairy would obviously be cold—it would be precooled—so it would be poured into the stainless steel container already cold. If it is sold over a reasonable period of time it should remain in a perfectly good condition.

I believe if we did this we could sell enough milk to turn the current surplus in the milk industry into a shortage. There is a tremendous market out there that is just waiting to be utilized.

I would also like to suggest that we need more free enterprise in the dairy business. The one-channel system has led to losses. Twenty years ago the individual farmer who had a dairy farm outside a major city was allowed to supply to individual persons in his own milk group. In Port Elizabeth I bought for years from a local farmer. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to hon members for a particularly illuminating and stimulating debate. With a few exceptions, I think an exceptionally high standard was maintained in the debate. I want to thank the leaders of the various parties in particular and to congratulate them on their fine introductory speeches on behalf of their parties.

†The hon member for Albany spoke about the division of agriculture. Let me say immediately that I cannot but agree with the hon member that it was a traumatic experience to divide agriculture. However, he would know that we have had three departments of agriculture in the past with two Ministers. It is therefore not something new; it has been done in the past.

Let me reiterate immediately: The three of us—that is my department plus the hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics and of Water Affairs and the hon the Deputy Minister—operate as a closely-knit family. We come together very regularly—I could say on a daily basis—and immediately discuss and handle any problems that arise. Things are going very well at this stage although we are still experiencing some problems with the division of certain aspects of agriculture. However, I thank the hon member for his kind words in respect of agriculture, and I really want to assure him that we will be doing our level best to keep agriculture a close-knit family and, notwithstanding the set of circumstances we find ourselves in now, we in this division will do our very best for agriculture.

The hon member also mentioned the fact that agriculture is literally a closed book. I agree with the hon member. The problem is that the young farmer who wants to start farming today can never—the price of land being what it is at this stage—enter agriculture via a farming enterprise. It is not possible. So we shall have to create ways and means for him to do so, and indeed we are busy doing so. I will say a little more about this issue a little later on this evening, but I want to say now that we are busy with this. We are looking at the problem of the young farmer who is trying to establish himself. A number of the hon members, including the hon member for Beaufort West, spoke about this. We are looking at this and I shall, later on this evening, perhaps express a few views on it.

The hon member also spoke about the financial difficulties of farmers. Later on this evening I shall go into much more detail about the financial assistance given to farmers, and I shall also try to point out how we can help our farmers to survive. The lack of security is something I shall also deal with at a later stage.

*I have also risen to reply to the only negative note in this whole debate. One should, in fact, have ignored this speech. I think that would have been the best reply to the hon member for Lichtenburg, because his speech was shocking. Even the leader of the agriculture group in that party delivered a fine and positive speech. Then this hon member rose and made a few statements. He said I was arrogant because I spoke with great enthusiasm about our grazing and its deterioration. He said I was arrogant. I said I would not allow anything or anybody to stand in my way when I take action to rectify this matter. I challenge the hon member to go to the Karoo and tell the people there that I, Sarel Hayward, am arrogant when I discuss this matter. They know me; they know that I am very frank with them.

He added that the R100 million in additional aid given to the summer grain areas was given because of the maize crisis. Surely that is not true! I referred the report of the Agricultural Union to the Jacobs Committee, and everybody knows that. I announced it at the time. The Jacobs Committee reported to me on the Monday or the Tuesday, I am not sure. Knowing that it was important to reach finality on this matter at an early stage because some farmers already require assistance in order to enable them to sow new crops, I deemed it fit to ask the State President’s permission to bring the matter before the Cabinet immediately. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the maize price. The Cabinet considered the matter and decided to accept virtually all the recommendations of the Jacobs Committee. The State President prepared a statement and issued it on the same occasion on which he met the maize farmers here. However, there was no connection between the two issues whatsoever. This hon member’s frustration—and I am sorry that he is not present in this Chamber—has filled him with so much hate towards this side of the Committee that he no longer cares what irresponsible statements he makes. He does not care any more. He does not care any more what becomes of this country and its people, and especially agriculture, if he makes this type of statement. He said that I had stated that bushveld was being cleared in the Northern Transvaal in order to plant maize. He asked why and said it was because this Government did not look after the people, thus compelling them to try something else. Do hon members know what the truth is? On the day I was in Northam, that hon member was still a member of the Cabinet and of the Government. Therefore, in his time people were already ploughing over good stock grazing in order to plant maize. At the time he was still a member of the Cabinet. Why did he not rectify the matter then? Surely, he, too, could have made an input?

The hon member said another terrible thing. He made the statement that this Government wanted to make the farmers dependent on them. He qualified this by saying that this R100 million in aid that had been announced was only to consist of loans. Surely that is not true. He does not even know how this R100 million is going to be spent. This R100 million still has to be included in the supplementary Budget. Then we shall spell out the details. The full amount will not go towards loans. He ought to know what amount is to be spent on interest subsidies alone this year. It is more than R200 million. These are not loans, they are donations. The hon member says we want to make the farmers dependent on us. I am on record as saying—it is a pity that the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is not present—and it was reported in the newspapers—and I want to repeat it here this evening—that I refuse to cause the farmers of South Africa to become the beggars of the Government. That is on record. Why did I say that? It was because I want to restore pride to agriculture. I want to eradicate this defeatism that is prevalent in agriculture today mainly because of the drought. The good Lord will give us rain again. We know this as surely as we are sitting here. The hon member delivered a speech today that caused me great distress. This Government and I do not have the power to give rain. Only the Almighty has that power. As humble believers we acknowledge that. I think the hon member went too far.

He went on to say that politically, it suited us to make the farmers dependent on us.

What a terrible statement! That hon member must moderate his language. I have been in this House a little longer than he. I have learned that one has to be modest in this place. That hon member no longer cares what he says, he no longer cares how much he infuriates the farmers of South Africa, because on a previous occasion he said that we should write off the farmers’ loans completely. I want to tell him today that he must not say that in the rural areas. The farmers will crucify him if they hear that. The farmers do not want write-offs, they do want to repay their debts to the Government and other bodies. I know this.

I think the hon member should restrain himself. He does not set an example to us, and as a front-bencher of that party he is definitely not an example to that party. He is not an example to the farmers of South Africa. In fact, I think the sort of speech he delivered today would have far reaching consequences if he should make it in places such as Lichtenburg and other parts of our country. I challenge him to go and say in the Karoo what he said here today.

I am sorry that I have to conclude the debate on this note, but I wanted to get it off my chest before supper, because I am disturbed that that hon member, who has a thorough knowledge of agriculture, was prepared to rise here and befoul this House with the kind of speech he delivered.

Business suspended at 18h45 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, before business was suspended the hon the Minister reacted very effectively to the statement that had been made to the effect that the Government had withdrawn its hand from the farmers. This statement has been made not only this afternoon but repeatedly in recent times. I regard this statement as mere cheap politics, and in accordance with the standpoint I have adopted over many years in organized agriculture I should like to contend that we should keep politics out of agriculture. Nevertheless I feel that we cannot allow this statement to pass unanswered. Accordingly I should like to give a brief summary of a variety of aid schemes—in particular drought aid schemes—that the Government is offering farmers at present.

It would not be possible in a speech as short as this one to deal with all these schemes in detail. The Division of Financial Assistance at present administers seven assistance schemes that are specifically aimed at providing drought assistance. There is the normal phased drought assistance scheme that we all know about. That scheme will be phased out in due course but at present it is still in operation in most of the drought-ravaged areas. This particular scheme entails drought assistance loans, railage rebates and subsidies on feed purchases.

The second scheme is the new long-term drought assistance scheme, better known as the stock grazing scheme. This scheme is already in operation in some regions and is geared to restoration of the soil. Together with ordinary feed subsidies and loans it also entails a cash remuneration per month for stock removed in order to reduce the number of stock by one third of the grazing capacity.

After it has rained again the farmers are supposed to feed their stock in feed lots for two months to enable the veld to recover. Subsidized loans will also be made available in due course for the construction of these feed lots according to specification.

The third scheme operated by the department’s Division of Financial Assistance is a water quota subsidy scheme at the Riet and Kaffer River irrigation schemes whereby farmers are subsidized with reference to water quotas which they are unable to obtain in present circumstances.

A fourth scheme is the debt consolidation scheme—generally known as the two-and-twenty year scheme—in terms of which farmers obtain loans to pay their consolidated debts. During the first two years the farmer pays no interest on redemption of his loan debt, after which the whole loan debt is capitalized into a 20-year term loan at an interest rate of 8%—a tremendous concession if one bears in mind the present interest rates.

The fifth scheme is the production loan scheme for grain farmers in the summer rainfall regions. This has been stepped up from R50 000 to R75 000 per farmer per annum and from this, provision is even made for a farmer’s cash loans and for rations for farm workers. This, too, is a scheme the interest rate on which is 8%. The sixth scheme is the six-year interest subsidy scheme for carry-over debts at co-operatives. In this case the interest rate is also a mere 8%.

The seventh scheme is the scheme for cash credit loans to co-operatives for production loans. These are Landbank loans and the interest subsidy on them is 35%. These seven schemes are offered in addition to several other aid schemes granted to specific industries which time does not permit me to deal with in detail. Without including Landbank assistance and assistance from the Department of Agricultural Economics, the loan assistance of this department alone comprises approximately R162 million for the 1984-85 financial year. It is true that this is money that the farmers have to repay but the fact is that the Government has to find this sum of money in order to make it available. In the same financial year the subsidies which are not repayable are calculated at approximately R215,9 million for the seven schemes I have mentioned. If I were to include the assistance granted in respect of maize, the dairy industry, meat, potatoes, citrus, dried fruits, deciduous fruits, cotton, karakul, labourers’ houses, boring and the canning industry, as well as specific aid to certain large co-operatives, the amount involved would be astronomical. I must also point out that the administration of all these schemes entails considerable additional staff and that the cost of this has not been included. It is often said that the share of agriculture in the budget is too small. Superficially this may appear to be so but I want to ask: When has it ever happened that the farmers of South Africa have been in difficulty and the Budget has not been adapted? One need only call to mind the R100 million which is now once again going to grain farmers whose third and fourth harvests have failed. Instead of criticising, I think it is our duty to express our sincere thanks to the Government for consistently holding out its hand to the agricultural industry. We convey our sincere thanks to the hon the Minister and the officials of his department, whose doors are also wide open to farmers and who show such an interest at all times in helping to resolve the problems of our farmers.

While expressing cordial thanks on behalf of the well-disposed farmers today, I also, in a very friendly way, want to bring a few other matters to the attention of the hon the Minister. As far as the ordinary phased drought aid scheme is concerned there are many farmers in the stock grazing regions who have had to make use of this scheme for eight years. Normally these farmers would have to repay their loans within one year after it had rained again. However, I know that this is not practicable and at this early stage I want to ask the hon the Minister to see to it that special arrangements are made for these farmers. I also want to ask the hon the Minister’s department to ensure that no farmer who gets into difficulties owing to factors beyond his control will ever have to forfeit his agricultural land.

All the assistance mentioned has been granted to farmers who are in difficulties, but this evening I wish to pose the cautious question: What have we in fact done for farmers who have got through all the difficult times on their own? In agriculture I see in particular two important bottlenecks apart from the many others that have already been mentioned. In the first place we welcome the fact that the producer prices are stipulated, but I think that there ought to be control over input costs as well. Another major bottleneck is the system of taxation for farmers. I spoke about this last year. We are pinning our hopes on the Margo Commission, that could introduce proposals that could suit the agricultural industry better. Nor have I any doubt that the hon the Minister will support our submissions to the Margo Commission as far as the law of succession, estate valuations, estate duty and reserve creation for farmers are concerned. Moreover I think that we shall achieve wonderful results if some incentive measure could be provided to encourage farmers to pay off their mortgage debts.

In spite of everything that is said, agriculture is still a fine industry and an indispensable industry for our domestic economy. The Government is at all times in earnest in wishing to treat this industry with the compassion it deserves. I cannot believe that the Government has withdrawn its hand from the farmers.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to speak after the hon member for Queenstown. I can tell him that we are of one mind, for the representations made by him are a deeply felt need as far as all our farmers are concerned.

I want to speak tonight about the financing within the agricultural industry itself. [Interjections.] To the hon member who said “hear, hear”, I want to say that is what we need. That is why it is perhaps a very good thing that the Government, in its wisdom, has decided to make the amount of R100 million available for the financing of additional consolidations and for the subsidizing of interest rather than to use it to push up the price of maize per se for the producers … [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Rissik is trying so hard to be a farmer that he reminds me of the wolf in sheep’s clothing, but he will be caught out in the same way. If one does not have knowledge of a matter, it is always a good thing to stay away from it.

In 1970 the total farming debt was R1 620 million, and in 1983 it was R7 410 million. During the same period the co-operative’s share in this debt increased from R113,4 million to R1 780 million. This means that the co-operatives’ involvement in the total farming debt increased from 8% to 24%. There is an increase of 300% in round figures, therefore, in the exposure to farming debts by the co-operatives. Together with that one must note that the farmers’ net income was R458 million in 1970, whereas it only rose to R470 million in 1983. [Interjections.]

From these figures the fact emerges that co-operatives’ exposure to farming debt increased by 300%, whereas the possibility of paying that debt decreased greatly. If one were to look at the relationship between the net income and the debt of the farmers, one would see that in 1970 it was 0,28 whereas in 1983, that year of bad harvests, it was only 0,10. We have therefore truly reached a critical situation for the agricultural co-operatives as far as the financing of the farming community is concerned, for in reality this means that it will take the farmers 10 years to discharge their debts. This is not capital redemption.

The way matters stands at present is that the debit entry, in comparison with the total floating assets of the co-operative, can amount to as much as 80%. This entails great solvency and security problems for the co-operatives. Co-operatives can no longer continue to finance farmers in the old way. Neither can the Land Bank continue to finance the co-operatives in the old way. If we say there was a reasonable basis on which the two different bodies treated their members or the people who applied to them for help, the question arises as to how it happened that certain means of production were totally over financed. I want to mention the example of the financing of fertilizer in the maize industry. If the co-operatives looked at the farmer’s crop potential and his historic production expenses and financed the fertilizer to the extent that it was used productively, effectively and economically by farmers, and the Land Bank were to act according to the same standpoint, I want to know tonight how it happens that the figures made available by the department point to the fact that fertilizer was financed to give a target yield of six ton whereas the true average of the heartland areas in which the survey was done, had never been above 3,5 ton. We must therefore ensure that we are on the right course in future. Unfortunately we are not on the right course in my opinion, for I feel that the correct method of financing will be for co-operatives to make sure that the farmers’ means of production will be financed only to the extent in which the resources and production capacity can be utilized economically. Money should be made available to farmers only on these terms, and not more than is justified on these grounds, for if this happens, the over-financing per hectare can easily to R70 for example, which cannot be recouped by the yield. Such a farmer loses that money for he experiences a loss, which can only be to his disadvantage.

The co-operatives and the Land Bank use the excuse that there were specific reasons as to why financing was not done in this specific way in the past. In the first place there is the very well-known reason that if they did not do the financing, other financial bodies would. There is a great deal of truth in this statement. If this is true, we must design a scheme according to which the outside financing which is obtained in this way and is higher than the economic top potential of a farmer will not be used in difficult times to the detriment of the position of the more careful and more conservative farmers. It is in the best interests of the country for this not to happen.

In addition, what is of fundamental importance in the relationship between the Land Bank and the co-operatives is that, just as the co-operative demands loyalty from its members to do business with it for the sake of the best interests of the whole co-operative community, the co-operative must know that in times of cheap money it should rather take Land Bank money than bills on the open market for in this way the Land Bank’s funding structure is broadened so that there will be relief for farmers from that area in times of high interest rates. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the anxiety expressed by the previous speaker, the hon member for Heilbron, as well as other hon members concerning the agricultural situation. I should also like to pay tribute to the group of people in South Africa who practise their profession in these difficult conditions—I stress the word difficult, indeed I want to say the most difficult conditions in South Africa—viz the farming community in South Africa’s agriculture.

I want to try to motivate it briefly as follows: The businessmen, the industrialists, the professional men and the workers, are all being crushed at present by the pressing economy in South Africa. The farmer is oppressed twice as much by the economy, however, because the farming profession is the profession that is mainly—I want to say almost exclusively—dependent upon the changing natural and weather conditions in South Africa. Many other people not involved in agriculture are affected indirectly by droughts and the associated hardships, but only the farmer is affected directly. Many other professional groups in South Africa are affected indirectly by the changing and unpredictable natural conditions in South Africa, but the farmer is the one who is hit directly by those hard blows.

Here I want to associate myself in particular with the hon members for Beaufort-West and Winburg who spoke about this subject earlier, but I want to approach it from a somewhat different angle. The statement I am going to make is a simple one, for it is general knowledge that the farmer has workers on his farm and that the farmer and his workers are the clients of the shops in the rural towns. They are the doctors’ patients and the clients of all the businessmen in the rural towns. They are also the members of the various churches in the rural towns. The farmers and their workers are also the clients of the banks in the towns. That is why I want to say tonight, if I ask for sympathetic attention to be given particularly to the position of the South African farmer in these oppressing times, that I think this case has excellent merit. The farmers’ attention is often required by the very difficult natural conditions to which they are subject, and indirectly the business undertakings in the towns will also be detrimentally affected by the farmers’ position.

Once the farmer has finally locked his farm gate behind him, the chain reaction moves right through, for it affects not only the farmer but also his labourers and eventually even the businessmen in the town. The banks also lose their most important clients, viz the farmers and the businessmen in the town, for the businessmen make a living because of the farmers. The day will also come on which the banks will have to close their doors and churches’ bells will ring for the last time.

I know there are many people who assert that the individual farmers can disappear from the rural areas and be replaced by large companies, but I want to tell those people that this argument involves a deadly danger for the future of South Africa. These companies can also experience in time that the fanning industry is not as profitable as their interests outside farming. They too, when they find agriculture non-profitable, can disappear from the agricultural industry. Then it may happen that a few large companies will remain to manage and control farming in South Africa. The danger may exist that those few large companies can dictate to the Government regardless of who is in power. They will be able to dictate to the consumer and say they will only produce on condition they obtain the price they want. Everyone who is capable of doing so, must guard against that evil day.

The problems of agriculture have come a long way. I want to quote from an edition of Die Kouter of 1 November 1982, from a report with the Heading: “Landbou verdrink in see van koste.”

Agriculture is drowning in a sea of price increases. I can continue in this vein. On 28 November 1983 a report appeared under the heading: “Boere vra vir Beskerming.” On 13 October 1983 a heading reads: “Landbou lyk nie goed nie, sê die Landbou-unie.” The report reads:

In addition I quote from a report that appeared in April 1985, under the heading, “Die boer in ‘n finansiële krisis”:

I want to conclude on a positive note. I want to associate myself with previous speakers and especially with the hon the Minister who said earlier today that we farmers should retain one thing under difficult circumstances—and these are difficult circumstances—and that is faith. We can tell them tonight that we retain the faith, with them, that there will be rain again and that the South African farmers will experience good years again.

Mr Chairman, it was a pleasure to listen to the hon member for Meyerton. He sketched the agricultural situation in a very striking way. If we speak of agriculture, we are referring specifically to the farmer. Various speakers have done so this afternoon, but I too am going to refer to this situation before I come to other matters. I do want to say that we should always guard against creating an image of the farmer as a beggar in this debate. I think all the speakers refrained from doing so. It is not the farmers, but the conditions during the past years which have contributed to the present situation of our agriculture, one which cause anxiety.

If I express a few ideas about the conditions in which the fanners find themselves after the drought of the past few years, I should also like to refer to farmers in my own constituency. Repeated reference has been made this afternoon to the effect the drought has had on agriculture during the past three or four years. This does not apply only in respect of the shortages experienced in food production, but also to the destructive effect on the liquidity of the individual farmers. The worsening condition is reflected in available statistics. I mention only a few aspects. Farming units decreased from 89 299 in 1971 to 69 000 in 1984. The total farming debt rose in almost the same period from R1 384 million to R5 776 million in 1982 and to more than R8 000 million in 1984. I think the figure for farming debt will be frightening when it becomes available in 1985.

My greatest source of anxiety is that a large percentage of farmers is going to have to throw in the towel within the next five years as a result of drought and the recession. This also affects many famers in my own constituency. Thus far, we have referred mainly to farmers in the grain producing areas. Reference has been made to farmers in other farming categories, however, but an aspect that is causing extreme anxiety in my constituency, is the condition of the irrigation farmers who are dependent upon water from the Loskop Dam. The dam is practically empty. At present it is only 22% full. The water allocation for winter is 1 000 cubic metres per ha to those farmers on the irrigation schemes. When this figure is converted it gives each farmer enough water to be able to plant 5 ha of wheat. No water remains then for the planting of a summer crop with a view to early summer rains. The irrigation farmers have submitted representations to the hon the Minister for additional water from other sources, and I trust their request will be complied with. This will not save the scheme, but it will bring quite a bit of relief. One can also appreciate the seriousness of the matter if one looks at the burden of debt those irrigation farmers have. To mention only one example, available figures indicate that the debt of the irrigation scheme under the Loskop Dam only to commercial banks amounts to R80 million. This works out to R130 000 per irrigation stand and an irrigation stand covers only about 25 ha scheduled irrigation land. Generally seen, I trust that something can be done to save the agriculture. If we cannot produce food, the next upswing of the economy will not save us either.

I should like to speak about another matter, viz plant improvement. The fruit industry is a very important industry in the RSA, and I should like to pay a bit of attention to it. This industry makes an important contribution as an earner of foreign exchange. In 1982—the year for which I have statistics—the industry earned R443 million with the export of preserved fruit, citrus fruit, deciduous fruit and table grapes. This industry should therefore be looked after. A great deal of research is done at the research institutes in respect of the cultivation of new cultivars, and this knowledge is made available to the industry via the South African Plant Improvement Organization. In the research a great deal of stress is laid on the adaptability to climatic conditions, the size of the fruit, overhead cooling, soil acidity and the application of land to orchard land, controlled atmosphere storage, ripeness, combating of disease—with the stress on viral and bacterial diseases in particular—etc. Ever thing is put into operation with a view to making only the best material available in order to ensure the highest possible yield.

Wonderful results are obtained in the sphere of research, and excellent cultivars are released. They are introduced into plant improvement schemes by the South African Plant Improvement Organization and the KWV. In the Department of Agriculture’s report it is pointed out that the present plant improvement schemes do not have legal status as yet, and are administered only on a basis of voluntary participation. I think this is a good thing as one can get participation much more easily—it will also be more effective—if it takes place on a voluntary basis. If it is made compulsory by law, resistance develops much more easily. What is necessary here, is for the improvement schemes to prove themselves and we are succeeding in that.

In the Republic, plant improvement in the food industry is still in its infancy. It is administered by the Plant Improvement Organization, which is managed, controlled and financed by the three boards, viz the Deciduous Fruit Board, the Canning Fruit Board and the Dried Fruit Board in a specific contributors’ ratio formula.

As the Western Province is the largest contributor to the fruit industry, the interest in these schemes is progressing quickly in these specific fruit producing regions. The northern parts of the Republic are still lagging behind as far as their interests in the improvement schemes are concerned. This is partly attributable to the fact that the control boards function mainly in the south. They therefore also obtain their levies which are applied in the budget of the South African Plant Improvement Organizations from the south.

There is another reason too. Certain bacterial and viral diseases of which plant material is completely freed only with difficulty, flourish more easily in climatic conditions such as we experience them in the south, than in the northern provinces. Inevitably this makes the growers, producers and consumers of material skeptical towards material which comes from the south.

At present negotiations involving the South African Plant Improvement Organization, the South African Nurserymen’s Association and the Department of Agriculture, are in progress. This has as its purpose the establishment of foundation blocks (grondvesblokke) in the north and the manner of financing the expansion of improvement schemes.

I am a strong supporter of the idea that the schemes should remain organized by one organization country-wide, viz the South African Plant Improvement Organization. A method for financing which should be satisfactory to all bodies should be found. Ultimately such a scheme should be self-financing and in the long run it should be freed from financing by levies from the various boards. It must be on the basis that the premium on improved material which is justified in light of higher yields, must pay for it.

A consistent publicity compaign which will bring the value of better material home to the public, will result in the insistence of every consumer of plant material, from the fruit producer to the home garden owner, on better material. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to follow after the hon member for Middelburg. The hon member is an exemplary member and it seems he is just as exemplary a bridegroom. [Interjections.] The woman who gets him, can thank her lucky stars. Since he spoke of an improvement now, I hope that if he is going to have an addition, it will also be an improvement. [Interjections.]

It was with a shudder that I read in Die Burger of 4 April that South Africa is becoming a desert. This kind of message together with the bad droughts, the high inflation, pests and plagues, hardly gives the impression that agriculture or the farmers still form the country’s backbone. [Interjections.]

The best long-term insurance against inflation is increased productivity. This statement applies to agriculture in particular. Successful research, guidance and training are the basis of increased effectivity in agriculture because this can make the greatest contribution to increased unit production and lower production costs. It would be unwise to expose these sections of the Agriculture Department to the same reduction measures as those that apply to other State departments.

I shall try, with a few examples, to spell out the real contribution of research, guidance and training to the financial advantage of agriculture and therefore of the whole country to hon members. Hon members must listen well, as I have little time, but I am working with large sums of money now. [Interjections.]

Calving rate in meat herds is estimated at 60%, 50% at weaning age. If calving rate can be increased by 20% to 80% by increased conception and lower calf mortality, 1,1 million fewer beef cattle can be kept to produce at least the same amount of meat provided by the present 4,5 million cows.

If grazing, hay and supplementary feed costs were calculated at R50 and non-feeding costs at R50 per cow per year, the industry can supply the same amount of meat with a saving of R220 million per year. That is the kind of money we need, and it can be done. I do not know whether I should say it this loudly, but I see in the Budget that about R110 million is being voted for agricultural research.

A saving of R300 million is possible in the case of dairy cattle. The hon the Minister need only come and ask me how. [Interjections.] Let us leave the sheep, pigs and poultry. In that connection there is just as much to be saved, but let us leave the chickens. My father said a chicken only meant something when it was in the pot on Sundays. [Interjections.]

Our farmers are not always wide awake. A survey by the Wheat Board about cultivars which are still being cultivated, showed that many cultivars which should have been replaced by others are still being cultivated. According to cultivar adaptability experiments which were performed country-wide, 23 kinds are recommended for dry farming conditions and 9 for irrigation. A survey by the Wheat Board showed, however, that 59 cultivars are still being cultivated on dry farming land and 16 under irrigation. In the same way—and now the hon the Deputy Minister of Agricultural Economics and of Water Affairs must please listen—only 9 cultivars are recommended in the Swartland, whereas 28 cultivars are still being planted. The average yield of these two groups is 2,1 ton and 1,2 ton per heetare respectively. Wheat can therefore be produced more cheaply.

Hear, hear!

In 1979 the Russian wheatlouse appeared in the Nothern Free State, and spread to all the small wheat-producing areas in the RSA. In experimental conditions the louse can cause crop losses of 30% to 90%. Thanks to timeous action by the composition of a research team, results according to which the plague could be controlled economically were produced within three years. A catastrophic threat was therefore warded off thanks to plague control.

Now we come to the vineyards. [Interjections.] Research shows clearly in the case of vineyards that a 250% increase in yield is possible with bigger trellis systems on soil with higher potential, as against untrellised vineyards. If it comes to the cultivation of vineyards, research done during the past few years has shown that the old methods of clean cultivation—some hon members will not know, but this is the trenching (bankiespit) that hurts one’s back so badly—and open furrows can be replaced to great advantage by good cover crops with economic area weed control. In dry farming conditions this system of minimum cultivation results in a cost advantage of about 30 ton per hectare, whereas in irrigation conditions up to 50 ton per hectare can be saved. In addition research results have shown that complete chemical control together with suitable cover crops results in an average crop improvement of approximately 30% compared to the old methods. If this improved technology were to have a 50% application rate in the industry, wine farmers would be R30 million better off annually, at a conservative calculation. They need it bitterly. I am one of them too.

In 1961 the plum industry was plunged into a crisis overnight with the appearance of bacterial spot. All available cultivars were subject to this plague to a certain extent, but thanks to research excellent cultivars with a high degree of immunity against the disease than the old cultivars, as well as a better bearing ability, have been made available in the industry. The result was an increase in profit from R0,5 million to R9,8 million. The same happened to Packham’s Triumph pears. The tomato yield was increased from 16 ton to 60 ton per hectare.

Agricultural research is therefore undoubtedly one of the most important investments a country can make. It is calculated that for every R1 invested, the yield is more than R500; some people assert that it is close to R1 000. If this is so, and taking the vulnerability of resources, their limitation, the population growth and the financial condition of most producers into account we must give agricultural research a very high priority. Talking alone is not enough. Funds must be made available. Once again the question arises as to whether agricultural research should be excluded from any savings that are envisaged.

The demands made upon the present-day farmer are such that only trained people can make a success of farming. There are four institutions which give formal agricultural training, viz schools, universities, technikons and agricultural colleges. Of these four institutions it is only agricultural colleges which can specialize their courses full-time in the training of prospective farmers, for those colleges are the most important source of newcomers to the field of agriculture. At present there are only five colleges which present diploma courses in agriculture. These institutions can take only 400 students every year which means a total number of about 750 in the two years. If it is accepted that about 75% first-years complete their courses successfully and that some accept jobs outside agriculture, only 200 to 250 students from the agricultural colleges enter the field of agriculture annually. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, yesterday afternoon the White Paper on the Industrial Development Strategy in the Republic of South Africa was Tabled in this House. It is a very important document indeed and that is why I would like to deal tonight with the future role of agriculture in the industrial development strategy in the Republic of South Africa. I should like to pay tribute to what the hon member for Worcester said, viz that in the long term, it was necessary to have higher productivity in respect of agricultural production because it is this higher productivity that will have to play a very important part in the industrial strategy that South Africa will have to follow in the future. That is why I want to deal with it. He mentioned the question of research and technology and the effect that they will have and I intend to deal with those more fully when I deal with this particular subject. I should just like to bring one thing to the attention of the hon the Minister and hon members, particularly those on the other side of the House, before I start.

The PFP appears to everybody to have very little or no interest in agriculture. We in this party are not even thought of in agricultural terms. That is not quite correct, Mr Chairman. The real situation is that the hon member for Albany was a primarius at the Grootfontein School of Agriculture, and he is one of the biggest mohair farmers in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South has a Master’s degree in Agricultural Economics, and he was also a lecturer in agriculture at the University of Natal. [Interjections.] The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North is a beef and mohair farmer and happens to be doing very well in the sphere of agriculture. [Interjections.]

Futhermore, Mr Chairman, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central happens to be a dairy farmer of quite some standing. [Interjections.] The hon member for Walmer is a big beef farmer, while the hon member for Wynberg is a wine, dairy and pig farmer in the Boland. [Interjections.] Finally, Mr Chairman, I too have a degree in agriculture and in economics, and I have been more interested in the agri-business side, thus proving how one can tie in the business of agriculture with the business of industry.

We are a party of farmers! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to agree with the hon the Minister in respect of the attack which he launched on the hon member for Lichtenburg. Being a little older than most hon members in this House, I can well remember the depression of the 1930s when agriculture contributed 20% to the gross domestic product of this country and not a mere 7% as is the case today. I can well remember what the farmers went through after the terrible drought of 1929-30 when the Government could not provide for them because it did not have the funds. What the Government provided then amounted to little as compared with today. That caused the farmers to quit their farms and to flock to the cities in search of work. I can remember how the wives of those farmers had to go and work in the clothing industry in order to earn some money. Yet the hon member for Lichtenburg makes the allegation here in this House that the Government gives nothing to the farmers of today. He just does not know what the facts are. It is a pity he does not talk with some of the older people in this House. They could tell him what the real position is.

[Inaudible.]

It is all very well for the hon member Mr Theunissen to talk. If it had not been for the small Jewish shopkeepers in those days—and there were no big co-operatives—there would have been few farmers left on the land at all. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I should like to deal with the co-ordination of agriculture and industry. One of the problems which we face in this country is that agriculture is inclined to become a watertight compartment on its own, without taking note of the fact that it is really part of the total economy of the country. The farmers are inclined to think of themselves as producers, and I blame the marketing boards to some extent for having brought the farmers into this position. The White Paper on Industrial Development Strategy makes mention in only very few places of the role which agriculture will have to play in future. I am really rather disappointed in the fact that the hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics is only mentioned once in the White Paper—that is right in the introductory paragraph. I am also surprised to find that electronics is mentioned as a thing of the future while the products of agriculture are totally ignored, and I intend to deal with that.

We must know that agriculture will have to provide the raw materials for industry, the food and fibre that we need, and the hon member for Worcester is quite right when he says there will have to be changes in the fibre and food produced. Great changes will have to be effected in this country in the future.

Are we providing the correct raw materials which the market really needs? It is after all the market which is going to decide this. We must have a change in the whole situation in that the processing of agricultural products will have to play a bigger role than in the past. Therefore, Mr Chairman, what we need is co-ordinated research into how our resources should be utilized to provide the correct products for the future industry of South Africa—for both the local and the export markets. In this regard I should like to refer in particular to the White Paper which was produced in 1984—the White Paper on Agricultural Policy.

I should like to refer to paragraph 8 in leading up to what I have to say. Under the heading “Optimum participation in international trade in agricultural products” one reads:

This shows that we have not been oriented towards the markets, both local and overseas. In the future we must aim at more of our agricultural products being processed and more processed products being sold because what we need to do is to utilize to a far greater extent our manpower in South Africa, particularly our non-White manpower.

I want to give an example and I want to come back to what the hon member for Middelburg and the hon member for Worcester said. I was very fortunate a few months ago to meet with the vice-president of one of the biggest wholesale firms in the USA when he visited South Africa. His firm has a turnover of US $1 billion per year—that is some turnover! He came to South Africa for the sole purpose of investigating the fruit processing industry in South Africa. I was fortunate enough to be able to take him to a number of factories. I also took him to the Fruit Research Station at the University of Stellenbosch, thanks to the help of the head of the Department of Agriculture. This American visitor said one very important thing, namely that South Africa has the opportunity to produce the best processed fruit, the best canned fruit, in the world, and that for one particular reason, the reason being that we have a large supply of labour. In California, for instance, where the present processing system is capital-intensive and labour is very expensive, it is impossible to carry out the detailed inspections which can be carried out in South Africa. We must make no mistake about it: It is not only a question of White supervision, because the majority of people who work in the canning factories happen to be non-Whites and it is their job to do the inspecting and the checking.

Order! I regret the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech in this devastating mood.

I thank the hon member for Boksburg for giving me the opportunity to complete my speech.

This particular gentleman from the USA made the observation that we have the best possible fruit in the world. As a matter of fact, he went to one particular firm of canners which happens to be in the constituency of the hon member for Worcester and, having inspected some cans opened, he said: “This is the most beautiful product I have seen anywhere in my whole experience.”

That is why I can say that the whole question of research is very important. In the annual report of the Department of Agriculture, which covers the period up to 31 March 1984, one sees that the whole front section is devoted to the amount of agricultural research being done in this country. It shows that we do have the manpower, the scientific qualifications and the people with the ability to do research to produce the required products with a view to the industrial future. The hon member for Worcester might not be aware of one particular aspect indicating how far they have advanced. It is interesting indeed to notice that in his particular district it has already been decided what vine cultivars should be planted to the year 2000.

Let us first of all deal with some of the figures before we proceed to the White Paper itself. In 1981 the agricultural sector of South Africa contributed 6,5% of the gross domestic product and 11% of South Africa’s exports. Let us see what we are going to do with agriculture in the future.

In the White Paper on Industrial Development Strategy in the Republic of South Africa one reads that over the past six decades industry has risen to be the biggest contributor to the gross domestic product of South Africa but that agriculture is falling behind. I now quote from paragraph 1.2 of the White Paper:

Paragraph 1.3 reads:

For this reason it was necessary to have this report, and an Industries Advisory Committee was appointed. Strangely enough, I do not see one person connected with agriculture on this committee although it is true that in their investigations they did approach the SA Agricultural Union. The White Paper states the following in paragraph 1.13:

It was laid down that one of the major objectives which had a direct bearing on industrial policy included a high rate of economic growth and employment creation. This is very important because unless one has that, one will not have the resources of agriculture being used up at all. It is vitally important that our agricultural sector has the high production which the hon member for Worcester mentioned, but unless there is a high rate of economic growth and employment creation, the products of South Africa cannot be used.

A socially accepted distribution of incomes and a more balanced regional distribution of economic activity is one of the further aims, and that is why agriculture is very important because the products of agriculture will play their part when it comes to the question of regional distribution.

The improvement of the social welfare of the people is another aim. The standard of living in the country cannot be raised unless industry can purchase the goods produced by agriculture.

There is also the question of a satisfactory degree of independence from external and political influences.

I should now like to deal with the question of technology. Here I want to say that the matter of research as mentioned by the hon member for Worcester is most important. In paragraph 4.36 of the White Paper one reads:

It does not matter if the market is the local market or an export market. One reads further:

One of the basic things that agriculture will have to do is to find out what the consumers actually want. They will have to make a study of the markets, not only in South Africa but also overseas.

That is exactly what we are doing.

But the Government does not tell anybody about it, and that is the trouble. The Government keeps everything for itself. The hon member for Worcester and I referred to the research that had to be done. Not even industry is told what the Department of Agriculture is doing in this regard. It says:

• — the needs of the market
• — the capabilities of the country, ie the availability of various factors of production;

This is where agriculture comes in, because it has the capability of producing many of the factors of production and it must play a much closer role with industry than has been the case in the past. Unless there is close coordination between agriculture and industry, there can be little or no future for agriculture in South Africa. The days are gone when one only had to produce raw materials for immediate consumption. Maize should be used for more products than just being used as food. The White paper continues:

I hope the hon the Minister will see to it that he and the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry will get together and be much more closely associated with this particular Strategy.

Dealing with technology, a few points should be raised. The Government’s view is that:

It is in respect of this that the hon the Minister must tell industry what he is doing. Industry must be brought to places like the Fruit Research Station at Stellenbosch and shown what agriculture is doing there. Industry must be taken to the various agricultural colleges and shown what they are doing there. We in turn should go to industry and find out what industry requires. That is where the future of agriculture lies, and this is how we can have true agri-business and have the opportunity to develop. When will the hon the Minister of Agriculture and his department take this particular White Paper on Industrial Development Strategy into serious consideration? We must make it compulsory reading for every single member of his department so that there will be co-ordination between the department and industry. Then whether it be White, Coloured, Indian or Black agriculture from tomorrow onwards, there can be a greater future for agriculture in this country.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased to follow after the hon member for Bezuidenhout. I want to begin by conveying my sincere thanks once again to the hon the Minister, who was the chairman of the cabinet committee which dealt with the results of the cyclone Domoina, for the assistance they provided to farmers in my constituency and elsewhere after the immense damage we experienced as a result of the cyclone. I want to assure him that the assistance is sincerely appreciated.

On this occasion I want to say a few words about a notable research station. It is notable in many respects. This research institute is celebrating its sixtieth year of existence this year and is one of the most modern and authoritative research stations in its sphere in the world. It is a research station that is maintained by the farmers in the industry and does not cost the Government a cent. Only four directors have headed the research station in the sixty years of its existence. I want to pay tribute on this occasion to the experimental station of the South African Sugar Association and the South African Cane Growers’ Association at Mount Edgecombe. Those who have had the privilege of visiting the research institution, will know tonight what I am talking about if I say it is one of the most modern of its kind in the world.

I should like to pay tribute tonight to the four directors who have stood at the head of the research station. Mr H H Dodds was the director at the time of its establishment in 1925 and he occupied the position for a period of 25 years. After him Dr A McMartin occupied the position until 1958 for a period of eight years. He had to retire as a result of poor health. Mr Wilson succeeded him and was director from 1959 to 1974, a period of 15 years. The present director, Mr Gerald Thompson, has occupied the position for the past 11 years, since 1974. The nucleus of this experimental station is situated at Mount Edgecombe just north of Durban and then there are still four experimental farms and four properties spread throughout the sugar belt. The total area at the disposal of this research station is 500 hectares, of which 175 hectares is under irrigation. A further 950 hectares is rented by the State in the area of La Mercy.

What makes this experimental station such a particularly great success, is the fact that research is done here, that to farmers, students and Black farm employees receive guidance and training and that information is compiled, published and distributed. I want to say something about the research done there and to single out a few highlights.

Initially the primary purpose of this experimental station was to cultivate new sugar varieties. The plant material of sugar-cane is the sugar shoot which, like bamboo, consists of segments and on each segment there is a bud out of which the sugar shoot grows and there are little root modules out of which the roots grow. New varieties are cultivated, however, from the seed that is found in the white plumes of the sugar-cane plant. All hon members who want to have proper holidays go to the Natal Coast, so they have seen these nodding white plume seeds. Fertilization of the seed could not take place in our country, however, until 1944 when a breakthrough was made at this research station. Before 1944 fertilized seed had to be imported from India to be used in experiments—as hon members will know, there are people with ancestors from India, but I did not get this information from Dr Heese’s book.

As far as sugar varieties are concerned, Uba sugar was the most important variety in our country until 1920. It was then replaced by Co 281. In 1938 fertilized seed was imported from India and at this experimental station in our country they could develop a sugar variety, NCo 310, which was released in 1945 and enjoyed world-wide recognition as one of the best sugar varieties in the world. In 1944 they succeeded in letting pollination take place in a heated conservatory in the botanical garden in Durban and last year a large modern conservatory, which carries Dr A McMartin’s name, was built at Mount Edgecombe.

Since 1975 nine varieties have been cultivated and released at the experimental station. In 1961 an agronomy department was established at this experimental station, and experiments inter alia are undertaken to combat weeds and chemicals are developed to ripen the cane at a given time so that one has an optimal sucrose content before the cane is harvested. Since 1936 studies of the soil have been undertaken throughout the sugar belt. In this connection a certain Dr B E Beater has done excellent work. His work was completed in 1970 and is regarded as one of the most authoritative studies of soil which has ever been undertaken in the RSA.

In 1954 a fertilizer advice service was begun at this experimental station and at present the station has the most modern equipment in the world at its disposal for the analysis of soil and leaf samples and consequently the giving of advice to farmers. Pests and plagues are also researched. One of the best known pests in the sugar industry is the Eldana Sacharina Walker borer which was observed even in 1939 on the Umfolozi Flats and then again at Hluhluwe in 1970. Biological methods are being used at present to combat this borer.

As far as training is concerned, it is interesting to note that 1 000 students have attained junior and senior certificate qualifications at this research station. Farmers can take a course at this research station. Black farm workers are trained at Mtunzini. There is also a mobile unit which goes from farm to farm to train Black farm employees and to date more than 30 000 Black farm workers have been trained.

I should like to know from the hon the Minister when the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Services to the Agricultural Industry will be made available. This unique experimental station is indeed an example worth following to all the other agricultural industries in our country. Valuable research is done, guidance and training are given, and none of this costs the State a cent. I believe the time has come for other agricultural industries to consider this and to follow the example.

Mr Chairman, I am grateful not to have been transferred to the Free State again. [Interjections.]

I want to join hon members on this side as well as the other side of the House in congratulating the hon the Minister on the announcement this afternoon of the national grazing strategy. I think it is typical of the hon the Minister, who comes from the Eastern Cape area and is a good wool and Angora farmer, and who was also involved in the stock industry for a long time, to come forward with a strategy such as this one. I want to tell the hon the Minister, too, that it would also be typical of him to ensure that this scheme was executed successfully. I believe that we on this side of the House, as well as everyone in the agricultural industry as a whole, has every confidence that he will eventually, with the co-operation of everyone concerned, achieve great success with this scheme.

To ensure success for agriculture as a whole, and for the producer in particular, it can be generally accepted that planning is a basic strategy. At the same time I believe we must recognize that conditions in certain areas of the country, as far as climate and natural environment are concerned—considering, too, the marketing problems we are experiencing in many agricultural industries at the moment—have disillusioned us with regard to planning in agriculture. A few years ago, when we still produced a shortage of basic food products in the country, when costs structures were still at a more acceptable level, when natural and market conditions excluded us from the experience of the sort of marketing problems we now have, agriculture and the farmer could still survive with the minimum of planning inputs.

Today, however, the risk position in agriculture being what it is, as a result of a combination of low profit margins, marketing problems and inflation, a new approach to the total agricultural structure seems to be necessary. As a result of the almost Utopian cost-plus price policy with regard to basic grain foods, such as com and maize, over the past decade, many farmers have to a large extent neglected the long and medium term and the operational planning of their industries.

The Department of Agriculture, too, has implemented policy in a fragmented and ad hoc fashion over the past few years. Present circumstances affecting agriculture in nature and in the market in my opinion, make it, obligatory for us to realize that production policy cannot be planned in isolation from marketing and credit policy. While the producer as well as the Department are at the moment obliged, by the discipline of difficult natural circumstances and a financial dilemma, to take a critical look at themselves, and are indeed doing so, I think both parties should ask themselves with what measure of success they have in the past made use of the infrastructure of the agricultural industry in order to execute policy, and how adequate that infrastructure was. In this connection I want to say today that adjustments are urgently needed. However, it will not be possible for adjustments to be made successfully by one party alone, in other words by either the producers or the Department of Agriculture alone.

Although the top structure of the Department of Agriculture is staffed by qualified, highly trained scientific and technical officials who are really eminently qualified in their various fields, the Department will also have to make adjustments to its own staff. An agricultural policy may never be fixed and rigid. Proper control should be exercised consistently. An agricultural policy should be of such a nature that it can be adapted to altered circumstances.

The Department of Agriculture, just like the farmer, will therefore have to introduce management skills into its staff composition. Just as the producer will have to accommodate effective business principles regarding management in his farming, the Department, in the altered circumstances we have now encountered, will have to pay urgent attention to the integration of effective business principles of management in the Department of Agriculture.

The parameters for promotion of staff in the agricultural sector in the past contributed to the appointment of excellent researchers and scientists—although with little grounding in management functions—to executive positions. Because of the background and experience of these able and highly trained scientific and technical officials, aspects of management and planning functions in the Department have in my opinion, been underemphasized in the past. In order to implement an agricultural policy in practice by strategic and operational planning, this aspect of management must receive high priority in the staff composition of the Department as well as in the style and practice of the producer in the field.

This brings one to the question of training, research and extension. I submit with all due respect that we in agriculture—when I say “we”, I am talking about everyone concerned with it—in the past probably allowed the situation to occur in which extension was inadequate to convey the available knowledge to the agricultural industry effectively in practice. In comparison with the investment in training and research, I think the extension programmes per se are being underemphasized, but the means whereby these extension programmes are being carried out, and the way they function, are also insufficiently emphasized. No business enterprise will continue to advertise a product if it does not sell. I think we have probably as a result of favourable agricultural circumstances in the past, allowed the functioning of extension to be ineffective.

The extension service of the Department is based on the philosophy of teaching people how to solve their problems and to obtain knowledge and understanding, and of inspiring them to action.

Although the Department accepted responsibility for extension in the past, the extension programme has to a large extent moved away from the Department. Although one can foresee that this will still occur in the future, I think the Department will still have the responsibility of controlling the extension infrastructure as far as policy is concerned.

At present cost structures there is not a single crop produced in the Republic that can compete profitably on an overseas market. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, if I could briefly come back to the hon the Minister’s reaction, before dinner, to the speech by the hon member for Lichtenburg, I should just like to remind the hon the Minister that in this place one should not issue challenges lightly. It has happened here before and some have regretted doing so. [Interjections.] I found it significant that the hon the Minister challenged the hon member for Lichtenburg on his speech on the maize industry, and said he would like to meet the hon member somewhere in the Karoo. [Interjections.] I found it significant that the hon the Minister did not challenge him to meet him in Bothaville or Lichtenburg.

No, do not try to wriggle out of it. You are trying to wriggle out of it now. [Interjections.]

I want to return briefly to the speech by the hon member for Caledon. I think he made a penetrating speech which would undoubtedly repay attentive rereading, in the interest of agriculture as well.

If I understood him correctly, the hon member also referred inter alia, to the utopia of cost-plus that existed in agriculture.

I want to link this to what has just happened in the maize industry. We who are involved in agriculture know what the worst problems in agriculture were in the past and what they still are. They are uncertainty regarding production, uncertainty in many respects regarding future production costs and, lastly, uncertainty regarding price. Tonight I want to state that over the years, successive price fixings have created a justified expectation among the maize producers of South Africa. I should be happy to be repudiated if I am wrong. They expect at least to be compensated for their production costs.

The hon member for Caledon then pointed out that we were actually dealing with a policy here which he had referred to as the “utopia of cost-plus”. The leaders in the maize industry themselves, after thorough investigation, realized that that policy could not continue indefinitely, and they came forward with certain proposals. Overnight, and without warning to that industry, a policy—and this is how I sum up the matter—that had applied for years was summarily done away with—without the maize producers having been given advance warning that it was going to happen! My standpoint is that although moving away from the old policy is very probably essential, it should be phased in without giving that industry a financial shock from which it will be very difficult to recover.

I want to repeat what I said previously be-for I concluded. I can only conclude that in the end, after the maize industry and the Department itself have carried out a thorough investigation into the production costs in the maize industry for the season now being harvested, this price determination is an arbitrary one. I should like to argue this. How, then, is it possible for discretion to have been exercised in respect of the maize farmers and attention given to their production costs over the past season if the price is identical—yes, to the cent!—to that of the previous year? [Interjections.] Surely this is not possible? This is a coincidence that can never be justified.

If, after consideration, the hon the Minister had decided to reduce the price or to raise it by five cents, I could argue that he had perhaps taken into account the farmers’ input costs and their production costs. I want to argue, however, that they were not taken into account at all here, and that it was decided arbitrarily for the sake of the cry—perhaps justified—that we should combat inflation because the consumer of that product is not able to pay a higher price. [Interjections.] If that argument is accepted I want to state that this maize price was determined purely for the sake of other industries.

No.

This was done purely for the sake of other industries.

Tell us which industries.

I then want to pose the question: If the Government argues that a maize price could not be increased so that inflation could be combated, why is the milling industry, as far as their price determination is concerned, allowed to ask for what they want after the maize has been processed into flour?

It was never determined.

Why are those people not being restrained, for the sake of the consumer in South Africa who is now at issue?

Of course they are being restrained.

We are now finding—and it is a pity—that for the first time one industry is being played off against another by the State. [Interjections.] Now comparisons are being made among price increases that this or that segment of agriculture supposedly received during the past one to three years.

Cas, you are skating on thin ice (Uys), you know!

Sir, that farmer from Boksburg should rather keep out of the debate. There is talk of marginal land being withdrawn—and perhaps rightly so—from the maize industry. One can, however, argue with equal justice—reference was made today to parts of our country where the stock farmers have been receiving drought assistance from the State for eight years now—that attention should be paid to those marginal lands, too. I therefore regard it as a sad day when in justification of the—in my opinion—unfair treatment of the maize industry in the present season, they are being played off against other branches of farming in South Africa.

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise to give the hon member a chance to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip. I shall try to finish as quickly as possible.

We are trying to look at this matter objectively. We believe that radical changes may be necessary, as has been suggested. I want to repeat, however, that such changes should be phased in systematically—this also goes for determining of prices—and cannot suddenly be imposed by shock measures.

Cas, may I ask you a question?

This hon member should rather go and meet his farmers at Theunissen, because they have several questions to ask him.

Since it is up to this hon Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply, to deal with agricultural financing as well—I concede that it is almost impossible to discuss these two Departments of the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply and that of the hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics and of Water Affairs separately, because they are intertwined—I want to tell him that proper planning for financing in agriculture as well can be carried out properly only if an answer can be found relative to the other facet—that of marketing and determination of prices—as well.

Mr Chairman, I am genuinely sorry that the hon member for Barberton did not make absolutely sure of the actual circumstances prevailing in the maize industry over the past three years.

You do not know what they were previously.

Sir, that hon member for Rissik should stand for election as the Free State leader of the CP in Bethlehem so that we can deal with him there. [Interjections.]

Order!

That hon member makes a tremendously large number of interjections and allegations in this House, but he does not have the courage of his convictions to stand for election in Bethlehem. [Interjections.] I shall leave it at that.

Order!

I am genuinely sorry about the statements the hon member for Barberton made. They are giving rise to a misapprehension among many people—something that is, of course, totally unjustified. The method according to which maize production costs are determined is a fixed method that has been used for several years. Last year that method was deviated from because totally different circumstances then applied. The harvest was abnormally small and so use was made of import parity to fix the price, and the cost structure was not used at all. Moreover, Nampo accepted this.

It was, after all, in the farmers’ favour.

Nampo accepted this and said they assumed it was a once-only arrangement. What happened then? Nampo then supplied the cost accountants of the Department with other components to add to the normal components according to which the price is calculated. Nampo also altered the yield denominator, which is determined according to a shifting average over 15 years, which normalizes the yield in order to prevent a rising and falling price graph. The denominator is then smaller—with three additional components that had never before been part of the price-calculation structure. Nampo then requested the Department to carry out a calculation of expenses according to this method only. The result of that calculation was a price of R270 per ton.

This of course, was a totally misleading version of the actual method and actual facts of the past.

That is not what you told the farmers of Bothaville! [Interjections.]

I asked Dr Gouws to prove to me in black and white that the Department had accepted that method. To date—and it has already been more than three weeks—I have not yet received that proof. There are a great many maize farmers in my constituency. I also have a lot of sympathy for the maize farmers in my area.

The maize farmers cannot live on sympathy alone! [Interjections.]

There are maize farmers who are suffering tremendously as a result of crop failures for several years in succession. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order!

The biggest problem, however, is the expectation that has been raised among the farmers because they did not go back two years and calculate the price change from that basis, and the result was of course that that one-off price determination, which was an import parity price—was used as the basis on which to calculate this year’s maize price. If we in agriculture have to resort to this sort of assumption to calculate prices, surely it would result in a chaotic situation? The whole unpleasant course of this maize debacle has resulted in people who have always been well-disposed towards the maize industry saying, all of a sudden, that things were now happening that they could not go along with. I am therefore terribly sorry that the hon member for Barberton did not make sure of the facts that obtained throughout the whole process that caused all this unpleasantness.

But Cas is a sheep farmer, after all! [Interjections.]

Yes. [Interjections.]

I just want to make a last brief comment in connection with this whole problem. Whatever party had been in power in this country…

That is an old Nat cliché, man!

… if that kind of misleading method was used, the same problems would have developed in any case.

What are the hon members of the CP doing? I am sorry the hon member for Lichtenburg is not here. He gets onto a political platform in Harrismith and says that the CP will write off the farmers’ debt. What debt are they going to write off? Can the hon members of the CP tell me that? [Interjections.] They do not even know how big the debt is that will have to be written off. I want to say that circumstances will prevail in which they will not be able to write off the debt, even if they would like to do so. It is therefore an irresponsible statement. People’s expectations are being raised, expectations which they, too, should they come to power, would be unable to fulfil. The farmers must take cognizance of that, too.

I should now like to return to what I actually wanted to say in my speech. [Interjections.] The grazing strategy that was announced here today is once again a very important initiative on the part of the hon the Minister. The biggest problem in connection with grazing control arises when farms are leased. Leaseholders overexploit the soil for two to three years by total overgrazing, and they leave behind farms that can barely be recovered, even over many years. This happens in spite of clauses and conditions in lease contracts. After these malpractices have taken place, the leaseholder disappears. He has had the advantage of the farm and it is left in chaos.

I also want to try to highlight another related aspect. I am referring to our dam basin areas that are fenced off so that natural grazing can be established, and to prevent the dams from silting up. These dam-basin areas are from time to time, during droughts, made available to those in trouble, and this is also abused terribly. I know of cases where farmers have been told that for 12 to 15 days they could drive 200 large stock into such a dam-basin area, and then 600 cattle would be driven in there. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we have almost come to the end of a very sombre discussion of agriculture today. At the end I shall perhaps say a few more words about this, but to start with I should like to thank all those hon members who participated after the lunch break sincerely for their contributions.

I want to begin straight away with the hon member for Barberton. He said I should be wary of challenges, but I issue it again. The challenge is not concerned with the maize price, however. I told the hon member for Lichtenburg that I challenged him to drive into the Karoo and go and tell the farmers there that the Government should write off their debts. That was the matter in regard to which I issued the challenge. I want to tell the hon member that he will be given a hard time. I know those people. I know how they feel. Only two weeks ago I travelled through the whole of Bushmanland and Namaqualand to see for myself what the situation there was like, and to meet the people there. I shall have a little more to say about this later.

I also want to tell the hon member for Barberton that I am not going to allow myself to be drawn into a controversy this evening on the maize price. The hon member is an old collegue of mine. We have come a long way together. We served for years on the Wool Board. Then, too, I really do acknowledge that he has an exceptional style of presentation. He owes it to a genuine legal background. He has a typical lawyer’s mentality when he presents his case here. [Interjections.] I am saying this in a good spirit, and the hon member knows it. He knows that during the past three years the maize price increased by 27% in real terms, while the prices of all other agricultural products decreased, in real terms, by 8%. We really must take these factors into account.

The hon member is also a wool farmer. He sells his wool at a public auction. Wool is therefore fully market-related. The wool is exported and if a loss is suffered, the industry itself, and therefore the farmer, bears the loss. What have the wool farmers done over the years? They thrust their hands deeply into their pockets and established a stabilization fund. The wool farmers guard that stabilization fund jealously; they do not allow it to be drawn upon unnecessarily. Everyone who attends their congresses knows this. The wool farmers established a stabilization fund which was able to carry them through any crises.

If we could persuade every agricultural industry in this country to take a leaf out of the book of the export industries that have established these splendid stabilization funds for themselves, we would have made a great deal of progress.

The maize industry receives cost plus. I should also like to be a farmer if I was assured that I was going to recover my costs every year. I should gladly go farming under those circumstances, and I say this candidly.

We must not allow ourselves to play industries off against one another in this committee. We must really not do that, and we must not do that as far as our drought aid is concerned either. Some of the hon young members here wrote letters to me in which they drew comparisons between what the stock-farmer and the summer grain farmer received. I had them come to my office and told them that I was certainly not prepared to enter into a correspondence with them on this matter; we may not play industries off against one another and draw comparisons as to how much the stock-farmer and how much the summer grain farmer receive. If we really got down to making calculations, we would perhaps be shocked to see what those calculations reveal.

I think that the hon member for Parys dealt very effectively with the hon member for Barberton, and I shall therefore leave him at that now.

It is humanly impossible to reply in detail to all the speeches that were made here, and really good speeches were made today. I want to congratulate the hon members. Speeches of a very high calibre were made here today; I would say almost throughout.

I begin with the grazing strategy, and I am absolutely excited to see with what enthusiasm hon members received this announcement on the grazing strategy. If we have this kind of enthusiasm here in the highest council chamber of our country, and we can muster the contagiousness which revealed itself here today in our stock-grazing areas as well, then I think we have a great deal of hope.

The hon member for Barberton, the hon member Dr Odendaal, the hon members for Pietermaritzburg South, Fauresmith, King William’s Town, Pietermaritzburg North, Prieska, Humansdorp, Beaufort West, Caledon and Parys all spoke about the grazing strategy, and I thank them for doing so.

I should like to deal with a few points which were made in this regard. To begin with, I want to say that the announcement was in fact made to coincide with our Vote discussion in order to stimulate hon members. That is why I circulated the grazing strategy a little before the time so that hon members could make a study of it. It was precisely intended to elicit a discussion within the House of Assembly, so that we could get our ideas together and stimulate one another in regard to the implementation and application of the strategy. We gained an enormous amount of information and generated many new ideas on this strategy, and for that I thank hon members.

A great deal was said about persuasion. I do not wish to mention all the names separately, because hon members will realize that that would take up a great deal of time. The hon members were quite correct: Persuasion is still the best instrument. Since 1946, however, we have had the soil conservation legislation on the Statute Book, by means of which we have been trying through persuasion to get people to accept good grazing practices. We have not made any progress and our present strategy is to come down on the person who refuses to listen. I shall return to this in a moment. First I should just like to express a few ideas in this regard.

In June I am going to Grootfontein, where a great deal of priceless research has been done in regard to grazing. I want to accompany Dr Roux and his people to see what is happening there. My plan is then to arrange a farmers’ day at Grootfontein—I hope to arrange it for March 1986—to which I shall invite all opinion formers, farming leaders, conservation committee members, etc from the Karoo region and even from further afield. In this way I should like to accumulate the opinions of the opinion formers because they will be able to see for themselves, on that farmers’ day, what the results of good grazing practices are. A strategy can then be worked out for the entire region. If it is a success, such meetings could even be offered on a sub regional basis.

I now want to say an important thing. We are going to identify a few farmers in each district as conservation farmers. They must support us in this entire strategy. We do not necessarily consider them to be better than other farmers, but wish to single them out on the basis of the conservation practices which they are applying on their farms. By means of persuasion, and the example set by these farmers, we hope to persuade farmers that in the long run it pays to be a conservation farmer.

I have fine plans in regard to our grazing. I have now had a great deal to say about the Karoo and the North Western Cape, but the same problem exists in regard to our grassland areas. The hon member for Albany knows this. The hon member for Barberton told me only this evening, in a private conversation, what is happening on the Eastern Transvaal highveld. Consequently we could expand the campaign so that it is applied on a country-wide basis. I am confident that we will be able to cause this effort to spread rapidly over the entire country and inculcate in people an awareness of this matter.

As far as our carrying capacity determinations are concerned, there was a great deal of opposition at first. The hon members for Prieska and Fauresmith discussed this. The hon member for Fauresmith was quite correct when he said that determining a carrying capacity norm could never be a fixed thing. All we are trying to do is to establish long-term carrying capacity, in other words, optimum soil utilization over a long period. As far as carrying capacity is concerned, the most sensitive time is immediately after a long drought, when the rains have fallen. The ideal situation would be if the carrying capacity could be established from farm to farm, but we simply do not have the manpower to be able to do that. The homogeneous farming areas have been established as carefully as possible, and the carrying capacity norms were determined on that basis. The carrying capacity determinations were then announced. Immediately afterwards the Grootfontein regional office started holding discussions with all the conservation committees. The negotiations have not been finalized yet. There are still certain regions which have to be consulted. Tonight I am so proud to be able to say that more than 90% of the conservation committees in the Karoo have already accepted the new carrying capacity determinations. To my mind this is a wonderful sign.

Furthermore, the hon member discussed the counting method. He was quite correct; there is confusion in this respect. At the moment there are four different counting methods. That is correct. The national drought committee is giving attention to this matter. We shall probably come forward with a uniform counting method soon. I am so pleased to be able to say that the counting method in regard to separate races has now been remedied. It was a cause of great concern—particularly to wool farmers. I am therefore very pleased to be able to say that this has now been remedied.

The hon member for Parys also discussed the question of lessees in regard to this whole matter. He was quite correct. We find the same situation applies in regard to State-owned land. Restrictions are imposed on all State-owned land which is leased, but once again we just do not have sufficient personnel to be able to monitor fully what is happening there.

A short while ago the hon member for Fauresmith drew my attention to what is happening in regard to certain State-owned land. I am very grateful to him for doing so. I do not want to identify the specific State-owned land. However, we shall have to give attention to this matter. It is true of course—hon members must realize this—that the Act is also applicable to lessees. In terms of the present legislation we can also take steps against lessees. I am delighted that the hon member pointed out that we would in fact have to do this.

The hon member for King William’s Town also said that we should use farmers in our overall strategy. Oh yes, I have already reacted to that. I have already said that we should identify certain farmers in every district and that we shall have to utilize them in the persuasion process. In any event, I want to thank the hon member very sincerely for having raised this idea.

This brings me now to another very important aspect in regard to the grazing strategy, and that is our information campaign. We are aware of the fact that we do not have sufficient numbers of extension officers to carry out this strategy. I think the hon member Dr Odendaal also referred specifically to this. He used a word which I definitely liked. I shall look up that word again later.

That is the reason why the Committee of Enquiry into Agricultural Services was appointed. That is the main reason why my predecessor appointed that committee. We received the report of that committee some time ago. What we then did was to refer the report to the SA Agricultural Union and the Co-ordinating Committee for Control Boards. I think those are about the only bodies to which we referred the report. However, the SA Agricultural Union, with its affiliated bodies, also deliberated on the report of this committee. We appointed Dr Immelman, the Director General of Agricultural Economics and Water Affairs, as the co-ordinator of all the comments received on the report. At present he is processing these comments. As soon as it is available—and we discussed it for a long time the other day—I am of the opinion that we may as well release the report of that committee. I did not want to release the report before we had received all these inputs—and the hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Water Affairs agreed with me on that score—because that would have meant that it would, as it were, have been thrown into the melting pot without people having been able to comment objectively on it.

I therefore hope to be able to release the report as soon as Dr Immelman has furnished us with his comments. Then of course—as soon as we have received the comments—we shall have to institute a thorough investigation into the implications of the report and its recommendations. We shall have to review the implications of the report because those implications, I think, will be absolutely vital as far as agricultural services are concerned.

I have said before—I want to repeat it now—that we do not intend to allow the report of that committee to gather dust. That will definitely not happen. If we can provide agriculture with better services by way of the application of the respective recommendations in that report, we shall do so, regardless of what happens to certain organizations. I think I shall content myself with that as far as the Kolb committee is concerned.

I must make haste. Several speakers have discussed financial assistance, for example the hon members for Albany, Schweizer-Reneke, Soutpansberg, Winberg, Queenstown, Heilbron, Middelburg and quite a few other hon members. I just want to make a few observations in this connection, because it is impossible to reply individually to each hon member in this regard.

There is just one thing I want us to bear in mind. The Division: Financial Assistance of the department is not a financing organization; it is an assistance-rendering organization. Hon members can go and read the Act on this point. It is an assistance-rendering organization which was established to assist fanners who, as a result of circumstances beyond their control, are experiencing problems. Therefore we must always bear in mind that basically it is not a financing organization. Hon members will recall that a few years ago the former Minister of Finance approved of our establishing a revolving fund in the Division: Financial Assistance, or Agricultural Credit, as everyone knows it. Unfortunately this revolving fund, as a result of circumstances within agriculture during the past three years, has not yet had a chance to grow. Hon members can understand why that could not happen. The return flow of funds is not as considerable as it would have been in good years. However, we hope that if the drought breaks there will be a more reasonable return flow of funds, and that we will then be able to exercise a far greater influence with Financial Assistance than has been the case up to now. I think it was one of the finest things we were able to do in regard to agricultural financing when we established this revolving fund, similar to the Land Bank. With the growth which definitely must come after this drought, we will in that way be able to exercise a greater influence on financing.

Quite a number of hon speakers discussed the young farmer. I think the hon members know the policy of the Agricultural Credit Board and the Land Bank Board. When applications from young farmers come before these Boards, they are really given very sympathetic consideration. A readiness to make concessions is discernible at both these Boards—I am very well acquainted with both of them. Particularly in these times, tremendous concessions are also being made in regard to security. As we all know, the Agricultural Credit Board does not only accept immovable property as security. They have already gone so far as to take movable property such as livestock, implements and so on as security. They even go so far as to accept the surety of bonds by fathers to help young men. I really believe that in this regard we are doing our utmost. My greatest concern in this whole crisis we now have in agriculture, particularly in certain areas, is in fact the younger farmer. We shall really have to take a thorough look at this matter.

The hon member for Winburg spoke about production loans. In the summer sowing regions, which include his area, these already amount to R75 000. I promised the SA Agricultural Union that as soon as the drought was broken and as soon as funds were readily available we would investigate the maximum of R50 000 which is at present still the policy. It was increased during the drought. We shall consider this R50 000, because I think it is really inadequate. What I intend doing is to ask the department to work out for me what it costs to establish a fully economic unit with some crop or other, and then determine the loan on that basis.

The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke is not present at the moment. He apologized for not being able to be here this evening. I just want to tell him that there is an investigation in progress on the use of the computer, and we hope to obtain finality soon in this regard as well. The hon member mentioned an important thing when he said that we should help our farmers on an individual basis. Hon members who read the report of the SAAU know that they stated the point very strongly that fanners should be assisted on an individual basis.

One should not therefore simply take an area and say that all the fanners in that area should be assisted. The point was also made that those farmers who have the ability to recover should be assisted. I consider that to be an extremely important statement. I shall let these few thoughts suffice on the subject of agricultural financing.

As far as young farmers are concerned, I just want to say this. The hon member for Albany also made this point. As far as the leasing of farms is concerned—this is State-owned land at agricultural value—the ages of the 43 successful applicants since 1981 have fluctuated as follows: Six of the cases were between 20 and 25 years of age; eight were between 26 and 30 years of age; 12 cases were between 31 and 35 years; six between 41 and 45 and four people were over the age of 46. It is clear therefore that most of the farmers were in the 26 to 40 age group. I only wish we had the means of supplying our farmers with State land more rapidly, for this is a method by means of which we can establish our young farmers in a really economic way. I shall let that suffice.

The hon member for Albany, Barberton and the hon member Dr Odendaal spoke about part-time farmers. The division is already making provision for financial assistance on a small scale in this regard. There is the requirement, however, that the farmer should occupy the land. I want to make only one point this evening, and I hope I am not going to tread on anyone’s toes by doing so. I do not deny the contribution which part-time farmers are making to this country’s production, but I just want to say that we should be careful about one thing, and that is that we should not give professional people, with a high income, access to State or semi-State financing organizations. I think that that would be a very dangerous thing to do. I am thinking for example of co-operative officers and managers, of whom some five on their farms, but are nevertheless able to work, who do in fact qualify for assistance—and I know of quite a number of cases in which assistance was in fact given. Such people work with the idea of utilizing the salary they earn to cultivate and develop their farms so that they can in due course return to their farming practice on a full-time basis. I also agree with the hon members that one can never replace the full-time farmer with part-time farmers.

The hon members for Ladybrand, Humansdorp and Caledon made brilliant speeches on planning in agriculture, and I really want to thank them for doing so. I just want to make a few observations on this score. At present we are not only concerned with overall planning, but also with our extension programme in regard to planning. I think we have some of the best technical extension in the world. I do not think there is any doubt about that. However, I should like to see our extension in future being of such a nature that we can offer the farmer a total planning package—including financial planning. I consider it to be of the utmost importance, because hon members will know that we receive many files from which it is clearly apparent that the farmers concerned get no financial planning whatsoever. However I thank hon members for a few very interesting standpoints, which my department will definitely follow up.

†The hon member for Mooi River spoke about housing for farm labourers. I am terribly sorry that we have had to shelve that scheme. However, I hope that it will be only for a while because I regard that as one of the most crucial issues on our farms. I hope to implement this scheme as soon as possible and as soon as money is more readily available. However, I thank the hon member for his ideas in this regard.

*The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke spoke inter alia about powerline schemes. My hon colleague who is sitting here now will pardon me if I say that in my opinion a fine dispensation in regard to power provision is on its way for the rural areas as a result of the recommendations of the De Villiers report—I think that many hon members know what the recommendations of that report are. I just have a feeling that that is what will happen.

I want to say this evening that my hon colleague of Agricultural Economics and I told one another this morning that we had so much confidence in the hon member in his handling of … [Interjections.] I am not referring now to the handling of other things, but to the way in which he is handling this portfolio, particularly in regard to Escom. We have very great appreciation for that. I do not want to venture a prediction now, but I have a feeling that there is a splendid dispensation for the rural areas on the way. [Interjections.] We have great confidence in him and we are going to help him in this respect.

The hon members for King William’s Town and Worcester spoke about agricultural colleges. I agree with the hon members that we shall have to intensify our training. At present we are giving attention to ensuring a greater intake of students to our colleges. This will mean that we will have to enlarge our hostels. The establishment of a new college at Nelspruit is now in the pipe-fine. We are planning a doubling of numbers in our colleges, which is absolutely essential. I am in full agreement with the hon members on that score.

The hon member for King William’s Town raised another very interesting point, namely the idea of a semester course. This is a matter which we shall definitely pursue, and we shall in due course return to the hon member in regard to this very interesting observation.

Then there is the matter of jointed cactus. [Interjections.] The hon member for Albany made the remark that this was a real “turksvy”. I fully agree with him. All I want to say this evening is that if we do not solve the problem in the Eastern Cape, it is going to beat us. The hon member was quite correct. We are going to see some of our best bushveld grazing becoming completely unproductive. The hon member was quite correct. I want to tell him that as far as biological control is concerned, there are adequate facilities and we intend to expand them. There is very good co-operation between our department and the various universities in this connection, and we are giving serious attention to this matter. As far as pathogenic control is concerned, we have a full-time official in our Australia at the moment. He is doing full-time research in this connection. I agree with the hon member that we must take a very serious look at this matter.

†The hon member for Mooi River spoke about price-fixing in agriculture. I do not want to dicuss the method of price-fixing now; that is the task of my hon colleague sitting here next to me. I only want to say that we will have to fight inflation in this country and we will have to beat it. The input costs for agricultural production have become so high that it is relatively impossible for any farmer, especially wheat and grain farmers, to make a reasonable profit.

I want to say this evening and I say it with all the sincerity I can muster, that if the people who supply agricultural commodities do not also take this into consideration, they will bring agriculture on its knees sooner than they can expect.

*This will happen if we do not achieve discipline in the determination of these prices. I want to make an appeal to these people this evening—and now I am referring to the fertilizer, and spare parts, people etc—and say that if we are unable to establish discipline in regard to rising prices, we are fighting a losing battle.

I thank the hon member for his kind remarks.

The hon members for Beaufort West, Meyerton, Queenstown, Gordonia and Prieska spoke about the repayment of stock fodder loans. I want to tell the hon members, particularly the hon members for Queenstown and Beaufort West, that I took the trouble, two weeks ago, of visiting the disaster area in Bushmanland. In the process I met many farmers. The present policy is that a farmer must repay his loan a year after the district has been removed from the list.

We know that this is not humanly possible. I am therefore devising a scheme whereby we can extend the loan portion over a longer period to enable that person to redeem it without serious consequences. My idea is—and I said this to the farmers, and they agreed with me—that we should determine the period in such a way that the farmer will at least pay off the bulk of the debt before the next drought occurs. I think hon members will agree with me in this connection.

We must also create an incentive for farmers within the scheme that will enable them to repay these loans. One of the hon members spoke about incentives which must be created to encourage farmers to repay loans. I forget for the moment who the hon member was. We shall definitely have to build incentives into our scheme in regard to the Division: Financial Assistance to encourage farmers to repay their loans. If one receives a loan at 8%, and one can receive 14% to 20% interest on the open market on one’s savings, one is not interested in paying off this loan. This is a fact, and we must therefore create an incentive for people to repay.

The hon member for Gordonia spoke about feed lots. I went to look at the Upington feed lots, and I was greatly. I think what is done in practice is a 100% correct. We are looking into this matter and we shall discuss it with the hon member later.

The hon member for Prieska discussed the Douglas scheme. I opened the scheme, and I was so grateful for the privilege of being able to do so. In that scheme we have a demonstration of what was accomplished by farmers who were threatened with complete ruin, but who did not meekly accept their fate. They, together with their co-operative, sprang into action and devised a scheme which has proved to be their salvation. The hon member was quite correct. Therefore I want to pay tribute to those farmers and to that co-operative. I cannot deny the part played by agriculture in the small rural areas. The town is completely dependent on agriculture.

The hon member for Meyerton also made the point that one has a chain reaction if farmers are allowed to go under. One has a complete chain reaction.

I do not want to spend too much time on water development. The hon members for Soutpansberg, Pietermaritzburg South, Wellington, Humansdorp and Middelburg discussed this matter. Overall training is being done by our sister department, the Department of Agricultural Economics and of Water Affairs. In this connection I just wish to issue one warning, and it is a point which the hon member for Soutpansberg also made: We must be careful that we do not base our planning on the drought conditions such as those we had recently, because it could lead to the creation of structures which are not required under normal conditions and subsequently we might find the water evaporating in dams. This is a very dangerous tendency, which I just wanted to warn against. The hon member for Soutpansberg also questioned me about the announcement in regard to the extension of the area. I hope to be able to make the proclamation early in June. I give the hon member my assurance in that regard.

The hon member for Queenstown also spoke about the Margo Commission. I thank the agricultural group of the NP for the wonderful submission which they made in this connection to the Margo Commission.

I also wanted to discuss research, but my time is virtually up. I just want to say that I thank the hon members for Middelburg, …

What about milk?

I am not going to discuss milk because it does not fall under my control, but I must just say that I agree with the hon member. He, and also the hon member for Bezuidenhout, made very interesting speeches on the distribution of milk. I shall convey these requests—the request to look into the matter—to my hon colleague. I shall also convey them to the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry. The hon member for Bezuidenhout raised a few very important points. I would prefer to export my skill, rather than my raw product, because the farmer creates employment. The hon member was quite correct.

The hon members for Middelburg, Worcester and Umfolozi discussed research. I thank them sincerely for doing so. It was interesting to hear those observations on research. I have a few very interesting points which I want to raise in regard to research. Unfortunately my time has expired. One becomes so excited and there are so many facets connected with agriculture that one can simply cannot get round to all of them. However I just want to make one point. Hon members know that a survey was made in a certain district in the Karoo. The difference in yield between the lower third of the farmers and the upper third of the farmers was almost R14 per sheep. Yes, almost R14 per sheep was the difference in yield between the lower third of the farmers and the upper third of the farmers. The hon member for Worcester was correct: Productivity is of the utmost importance in agriculture.

I now want to conclude and I have not even come to the question of plant improvement which the hon member for Middelburg mentioned. The hon member will pardon me if I write him a letter in this regard. My time has really expired now, and I still have to perform another very important task.

Mr Jan Retief has been a member of the Agricultural Credit Board since 1966, since the Agricultural Credit Act was put into operation, and since 1970 he has been Chairman. From 1963 to 1966 he was with the Farmers’ Assistance Board. I regret to have to say that Mr Retief informed me a month ago that he was going to retire at the end of September. I think it is a great blow to many of our MPs. If there ever was a man who was accessible, it was he. Tonight I should like to pay great tribute to this man who virtually established the Agricultural Credit Board and its policy. He must know that there are a large number of farmers in this country who will be eternally and profoundly grateful to him for what he did for them and for the Agricultural Credit Board, and for the way in which he did it. I also thank him on behalf of all hon members and I think I am speaking on behalf of all of us when I wish him a very happy retirement. I hope he enjoys good health and that he will enjoy his retirement thoroughly.

I should also like to convey my sincere thanks to Dr Aggenbach and the entire personnel of the department. I want to tell this House this evening that it is an experience to be able to co-operate with these men. Their enthusiasm is so contagious that one cannot but join them in getting stuck into what has to be done. I should also like to convey thanks to my Parliamentary personnel. I want to see the department which gets as much work done as we have this year with so few people.

Finally I also want to thank my own staff. Not all days are pleasant. I readily concede that. Perhaps I am not the easiest boss to work for either, but I nevertheless want to thank them for what they have done.

I conclude by conveying my very sincere thanks once again to all the hon members for an exceptional discussion. It did me a great deal of good to listen to it, in fact it was thought-provoking, and during the lunch hour my staff told me that it was a privilege for them too to sit here and listen to the way in which the leaders of this country discussed agriculture.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.