Mr. Speaker, I move—

I am very grateful for this opportunity to discuss this vital matter in the hon. House. Agriculture forms the basis, the backbone of a major part of our country’s economy. I want to express the hope that the motion will be regarded in its true light and will be discussed in the serious spirit that it deserves, and that it will not be regarded as a farmer’s jeremiad.

It is with some hesitation that I introduce the motion today. In my part of the country the agriculturalists are proud people and for years we were proud to say that we could look after our own affairs. When resolutions requesting subsidies or aid were submitted at agricultural congresses in the Boland and elsewhere, they usually did not enjoy the sympathy of the congress goers, and consequently it is not easy for me today to stand up in the House and say that economically speaking, agriculture has its back to the wall. It is quite a coincidence that in today’s edition of the Financial Gazette the following article appears under the title “Farmers face Waterloo”—

The agriculturists of our country are responsible people and if one may speak of economic patriotism, I want to say that the finest examples of this are to be found among the agriculturists of South Africa. Agriculture has consistently carried out its responsibility towards the nation, sometimes under very difficult circumstances and with very limited potential. There is sufficient food in South Africa today to feed the nation, and surpluses to export as well, so that besides the gold industry, agriculture is still one of the biggest single earners of sorely needed foreign exchange. It is calculated that the value of agricultural exports still comprises about 30% of our total exports, excluding gold. The fact that the agricultural sector’s contribution to the gross domestic product has dropped from 17,4% in 1950 to 7,5% at the moment may create the impression that agriculture is no longer important. However, as I said at the start of my speech, agriculture forms the basis of the economy of much of the rural areas in particular. It should also be borne in mind that about 29% of the economically active population is employed in agriculture, and that together with the other primary industries—of which agriculture is, of course, the most important—agriculture provides the raw materials for about 32% of the secondary industries. An additional very large percentage of the economically active population is employed by this 32% of the secondary industries.

Not only is agriculture the provider of raw materials and, directly and indirectly, the creator of employment opportunities, but— and this is very important—it is a consumer of production goods on a vast scale. On page 87 of the survey of agricultural statistics, it is mentioned that in 1976–’77, the agricultural industry purchased packing material to the value of R36,6 million, fuel to the value of R1 744 million, fertilizer to the value of R255 million, fodder to the value of R284,7 million and sprays, etc. to the value of R66 million. In other words, agriculture is a generator of economic activity.

In my town—and I believe that this applies throughout the country—businessmen will tell you that if the farmers lack purchasing power, little goes on in the economic life of the towns in that region. It is therefore vital to many people that the agricultural industry should be economically sound. We cannot permit agriculture to be a wasting asset.

After this long introduction, in the course of which I hope I have succeeded in showing the importance of agriculture in our economy, I want to state that if we do not take cognizance of the present state of agriculture, we are heading for disaster. I have before me studies of the affairs of farmers from my part of the country. I have before me about 100 studies of the affairs of individual farmers who find themselves in extremely straitened financial circumstances. We do not want to accuse anyone. I know that the farmers are doing their best and I know, too, that in the region which I represent the productivity of the farmers is high and that they are striving to produce as well and as economically as possible, but the fact is simply that circumstances have forced us into this situation. Consequently we cannot but take a grave view of this situation.

In the limited time available we on this side should like to draw attention to three important problems which we farmers are faced with. The first is an increase in production costs, and we shall try to indicate how this leads to the second problem, that of insufficient capital supply, and, thirdly, the effect of this whole situation on food prices. Sir, it may be said that after all, all sectors of the economy are faced with increases in production costs. That is true, but in the case of agriculture it is not so easy to pass these increases on to the consumer in the form of increased prices. The prices of our most important agricultural products are controlled, and I think it is right that this should be so. The principle of cost plus remuneration for the producer has always been maintained in the past. If we had been able to continue with that system, then I do not believe there would be cause for concern, but due to certain extraordinary circumstances it has become virtually impossible to maintain this principle. Due to over-production in the wheat industry the principle had to be abandoned last year. Unfortunately, therefore, it is no longer the case that farmers are operating on a cost-plus basis. No industry can carry on if it has to operate and produce with a discrepancy in its cost/price structure. If the Railways’ costs increase, its tariffs have to rise; if the Post Office’s costs increase, its tariffs have to rise. The same applies to any other body. It applies to Iscor, Escom, the banking industry, the fertilizer companies—you name it. Additional cost inputs have to be recovered. The same applies to Koos van der Merwe or John Farmer, whoever he may be. Whether he has a wheat farm, a dairy farm or whatever, he cannot carry on if there is a sustained imbalance between his input and his output.

What is going on in agriculture today? Let us take a look at the figures. I want to quote a few figures which do not come from official statistics but which I have obtained from the commercial world. Let us just take a brief look at tractor prices. I have taken three models—models A, B and C—models of the same make but varying horsepower. From 1974 to 1977 the price of model A, after supertax, increased by 138%. The price of model B rose by 146% and that of model C by 148%. Converting this into money, that means that in 1973 I could have bought these three tractors for R16 000 whereas in 1977 I would have had to pay R41 000 for them. There is a further shock: It is expected that the price of the new consignment for this year is to increase to about R50 000 for these three tractors. This represents an increase of about 150% over five years. The price of combine harvesters has increased as follows: A certain model still cost R16 000 in 1973; in 1977 the price was R32 000 and the expected price for 1978 is R40 000. Other production requisites frequently reflect the same pattern. However we also had to make provision for higher labour costs. Due to the rise in the cost of living of farm labourers we had to look after these people and increase their wages.

What happened to the product produced by means of these tractors, this combine harvester and this labour? In 1973–’74 the wheat price of “A super” wheat was R80,81, the following year it was R93,44, the year thereafter R107,33 and in 1976–’77 it was R123,61. In the subsequent year, after the Department of Agricultural Economy and Marketing had ascertained that production costs had increased by R8 per ton, the price remained the same, viz. R123,61. We see, therefore, that the price of wheat has risen by 65% over a period of five years, in comparison with an increase of 150% in the price of the production requisites used to produce the wheat. We do not want to level accusations at anyone in this regard. However, these are the facts, and we are seeking a solution. Hon. members must excuse me if I often refer to the situation in the Western Cape. However, I know the circumstances of the Western Cape farmer and it is very clear to me from the information at my disposal that in the economic field the farmer is going downhill at an alarming rate. This decline in their fortunes is far more rapid than is suggested in the well-known story of Prof. Kassier who maintained that it took a farmer 30 years to go bankrupt.

At one of our biggest supply co-operatives in the Western Cape—it is with their permission that I furnish this information—turnover has increased by 57% over the past four years. This increase is normal; we expect it. What is gravely disturbing, however, is that over the same period the amount owing to the co-operative in respect of the unpaid accounts of its members has increased by 91%, and this is in spite of the implementation of a very stringent credit policy by the co-operative. This is undoubtedly heading for disaster, particularly if one bears in mind that owing to poor harvests over the past year, the same cooperative has received 19% less wheat, measured in terms of money value. The cooperative has therefore received 19% less to pay to its members.

The worst of it, however, is illustrated by two indexes. In the annual report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing for the period 1 July 1975 to 30 June 1976, certain tables appear. In table 4 appear indexes of producer prices. Therein we are informed that all field husbandry products over a period of 10 years have shown an average price increase of 99,8%, viz. almost 100%. Wheat, of course, is again the exception to the rule because the price of wheat has risen by a mere 65,3%. In table 5 there is a price index of farming requisites. This table shows that over a period of 10 years the price of all farming requisites has increased by 139%. This is 39% more than the average price increases. The price of capital goods has increased by 165%, fertilizer by 103%, fuel by 201%, tractors by 179%, implements by 138% and spare parts by 117%. Unless—and this is important— provision was made in the base year for a substantial profit margin in the producer prices of agricultural products, then according to this index a profit can no longer be shown. However, I can assure hon. members that 10 years ago there was no substantial profit involved in the price of agricultural products. There was indeed a reasonable, but not an excessive profit. Hon. members will understand, therefore, if I tell them that according to my own estimate—and I think I am very close to the truth—in the Western Cape, which extends from the Stellenbosch region to the mouth of the Olifants River, co-operatives alone will have to find approximately R8 million this year in order to cover members’ accounts that cannot be paid. This situation is disturbing and it does not apply to the Western Cape alone. Official statistics have it that the total agricultural debt for the period 1975 to 1976 rose by R304 million to the record sum of R2 310 million. What is particularly disturbing is that over the period 1971 to 1976, the total burden of debt of farmers rose by only 15%.

From 1976 to 1977, according to official figures, the burden of debt increased by 15%, viz. over a period of one year only. What is also disturbing—and here I am referring again to the situation in the Western Cape—is that the amounts by which farmers fall in arrears on their annual accounts cannot be repaid in the short term. Even with good crops the following year the repayment of the arrear amount would have to be distributed over a period of three to four years. It will therefore be necessary to provide longer-term credit financing than the ordinary cash credit which farmers make use of.

This brings me at once to the next problem area in the agricultural industry, viz. the issue of capital supply. It is officially calculated that the agricultural sector today yields a return of 6,2%. With this return—in some branches of the industry it is undoubtedly even lower—one can expect that there will be resistance to investment in agriculture. Hon. members must bear in mind that the risk factor remains high. Financial institutions can no longer be enthusiastic about capital supply to the agricultural industry, particularly if the yield norm used by the Price Controller for Industries as a yardstick is 15%. In 1976 the total capital expenditure in agriculture amounted to an estimated R18,527 milliard in 1976. Lands and fixed improvements represent 77% of this amount. It may be argued that land and fixed investments are valued too high. This may be so, but I do not want to deal with that. I want to confine myself to the remaining 23% which is invested in other capital goods.

In an industry such as agriculture— probably this is the case in any industry—investment has to take place every year. Machinery and implements have to be replaced, and every year there has to be operating capital for continued production. This is what gives me cause for concern. Due to the price/cost imbalance, capital formation in the form of savings is not taking place. What this amounts to is that provision is not being made for the replacement of machinery and other assets. In reality, the farmers are consuming their capital and are not generating capital. Unless a full-scale change occurs, this is going to create an enormous problem in the future and may result in many farmers having to throw in the towel. This calls to mind a story I read recently about the man who won R100 000 on a lottery; when people asked him what he was going to do with it, he said: “I am going to farm until it is finished.” We shall continue to farm, but I have encountered a spirit of defeatism among some farmers. The other day a farmer said to me: “Old friend, I shall press on and I shall do my best to keep the farm going, but I am telling you that my son will not come and farm one day, because I do not see a future for him in farming.” It will be a bad day when that is the spirit among our farmers.

I have said that the farmers’ burden of debt in 1976 was estimated at R2 310 million. How is this amount financed? The Land Bank contributes approximately 20,8% of the amount; the commercial banks, 21%; cooperatives, 14,9%; the Department of Agricultural Credit, 6,8%; private bodies, 16,1%, and others, 20,4%. 70% of the debt is mortgage debt. The most important sources of financing are the Land Bank and our commercial banks. Most people are under the impression that the Land Bank has a far greater share in this type of financing than the 20,8% which I have mentioned. It is constantly being cast in the teeth of agriculture and the farmers that they work with what is referred to as cheap Land Bank money. I think that the figures I have just quoted reflect the true situation. One is sincerely grateful for the financing that is done by the Land Bank, but we know, too, that the Land Bank is handicapped by a shortage of funds. I therefore make an earnest appeal to the Government to put more money at the disposal of the Land Bank. This will result in the stabilization of agriculture and be to the benefit of the country.

I want to come back to the situation in respect of short-term capital. In this connection it is necessary to look at the important role played by the co-operatives and the way in which the co-operatives, with the aid of the Land Bank, perform an absolutely indispensable function in the economy of the country. Co-operatives constitute the most important buffer we have against recession and depression in the agricultural industry. We regard the co-operatives as extensions of the farmer, whose function it is to store, process and market the farmer’s product and provide the market with production requisites and services. Consequently, in so far as the Land Bank finances the co-operatives, it is in fact financing the farmer. Cash credit loans or seasonal loans to co-operatives by the Land Bank have already become an established form of financing for the handling of agricultural products and the purchase of implements and other farming requisites. The amount that has to be utilized for this method of financing, ran to R1 441 million in 1975, and one may expect this amount to grow steadily in the future. The Land Bank—as is spelled out in its annual report—wishes co-operatives to make an effort to build up as much of their own capital as possible, but due to the prevailing conditions and due, too, to the fact that the profits of co-operatives became taxable in the past year, it is going to become more and more difficult for co-operatives to meet their own needs.

All this having been said, we find ourselves in the impossible situation that the agricultural industry is being squeezed between prices on the one hand and rising costs on the other. What is the solution? Other hon. members who will take part in the debate will go into this in more detail. Personally, I only see one solution, and that is that we in South Africa will have to accept that food supply is not the exclusive responsibility of the farmer, but that the consumer and commerce will have to make their contributions as well. We shall have to accept that our people will have to pay more for their food.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Malmesbury made quite a number of statements which are fairly important. I should just like to refer briefly to a few of them. The first important statement that he made was that the farmers had their backs to the wall today. I am a farmer myself and I hope that my situation is not quite so desperate, but I can assure the House that what the hon. member said is quite true for many farmers. The hon. member said that in his specific constituency there were no fewer than 100 farmers who are experiencing financial problems at the moment.

The hon. member also said that many of the prices of essential agricultural products were being controlled. I think we should add that the production costs of those products are neither controlled nor controllable. Therefore, the problem which arises is that the final price is controlled while the farmer struggles to keep the production costs low enough to make farming profitable. He also mentioned that interest on investments in agriculture today is very low, especially in comparison with investments in many other spheres. Therefore, it seems that an investor will not easily invest his money in agriculture if he can do much better in other sectors. The hon. member also mentioned that risks for investments in agriculture were fairly great. Furthermore, he said that the farmers were using up their capital and that one wondered how long it could go on in this way because the industry would really be in trouble when all the capital had been used up. Finally he asked for more money to be made available to the Land Bank in order to grant assistance where necessary.

I have a great deal of sympathy with many of these matters which have been raised and I may be able to support the hon. member’s motion to a large extent. However, I feel that when one talks about agriculture, it is perhaps necessary to take the discussion a little further than the mere technical aspects of agriculture, because conditions in agriculture very largely determine the welfare of the entire rural community. If we look at the population figures, we notice that in 1946, 64% of all South Africans lived in the rural areas—I am including the Bantu homeland areas—while by 1970, the figure had dropped to 52%. Therefore it is clear that the flow from the rural areas to the cities is continuing and even increasing.

The percentage of the population involved in agriculture today has dropped considerably. I think that only 16% of the whole population is involved in agriculture at the moment. This small percentage will have to meet all the food requirements of the whole population. It is alleged that the population will be approximately 50 million by the year 2000—once again I am including the Bantu homeland areas in my calculation. If we take a look at this population increase, we see that an extremely small percentage of the whole population will be responsible for providing food. Apart from the fact that there are going to be 50 million people, a large percentage of that population will be urbanized, and the agriculturalist will have to provide his products at a price which the city-dweller can afford, and it will have to be packaged in such a way that it will in fact be able to reach the cities.

I understand that recommendations in this regard are already being studied by a committee which has investigated rural reform. Unfortunately I have not yet seen that report. I am absolutely sure that attempts will have to be made to reduce production costs.

I should like to make one or two suggestions which may help to reduce production costs. Firstly, I should like to tell the farmer that we must beware of over-mechanization. There is a tendency amongst farmers today to prefer the machine to the man. I believe that this tendency is more likely to occur in labour intensive industries and it may be the result of the farmer’s desire to get away from the responsibility to his workers which he has always accepted as a matter of course. I am not criticizing the farmer. I think that in the times in which we are living there is a tendency to want to move away from the responsibility which one has over weekends, especially with large numbers of workmen on one’s farm. Then if one gets a machine to do the work, one buys it. I believe that this is often done, but there is a corresponding increase in production costs.

A second factor which may have something to do with this is the high cost of decent housing. Every decent labourer’s house which is erected on a farm or in the rural areas ensures that one less family will rush off to the cities. I do not think that the Government makes nearly enough money available to the farmer or in the country areas for housing. Good housing also guarantees a decrease in production costs, because a man who is decently housed is prepared and able to do better work.

That chap is talking sense; he cannot be a Prog! [Interjections.]

Secondly, it is essential for new scientific methods to be applied in practice. However, I have a problem in this regard. If the farmer wants to apply scientific methods—and everyone wants to do this—it is necessary for our workers to receive the necessary training. In this regard I should like to address a request to the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs as well, because I think that he is also involved here. The establishment of farm schools and schools in the rural areas, for the Coloureds in our area in particular, is absolutely essential. I believe that the same holds good for the rest of South Africa too. People who must apply scientific methods need basic training. I think that a great deal can be done about this.

While the farmers must help themselves, as I have indicated, and I am sure that there are other methods as well, there are, however, quite a number of factors which are beyond their reach. Here I am referring to the tremendous increase in the prices of fertilizer, equipment, tractors, sprays, electricity, Escom power, etc. I believe that the increases in those costs are largely of an inflationary nature and it is necessary for the farmers to realize that the Government’s ideological obsession with over-government in South Africa is to a large extent responsible for those costs. That is my opinion.

You began well; what is happening to you now?

When it comes to the provision of capital, while the agricultural sector increased its net income by approximately 22% in the 12 month period which ended in September, its debts have also increased tremendously in that period. It is to be expected that higher production will also bring about higher costs. This is normal. However, I believe that it has increased to such an extent in the agricultural sector that one could in fact call it abnormal. Allow me to quote briefly from what has been said by Mr. Chris Cilliers, the director of the S.A. Agricultural Union. He has said—

This has already been referred to. He goes on to say—

I agree with the hon. member for Malmesbury, who says that the farmer would not like to give up his independence as far as financing is concerned. I do not think that the farmer would like to admit that he has his back to the wall. I believe it is necessary for the agricultural industry, like any other industry, to be independent and for investments in the agricultural industry to be comparable with those in every other industry. I believe that we must try and work towards this. There is a temptation to ask for further credit. However, this is a temptation which one must try to resist. In the circumstances, however, I believe that the motion of the hon. member for Malmesbury should be supported. However, I should also like to make it clear that I feel that there is a great deal which should be rectified in the industry in order to enable it to stand on its own two feet. As I have already said, I believe that a great deal can be done by the Government to help avoid unnecessary costs, especially unnecessary production costs, in agriculture. I should like to move an amendment, an amendment which is actually an extension of the motion of the hon. member for Malmesbury. I therefore move the following amendment—

In conclusion I should just like to say that the hon. member for Orange Grove will at a later stage discuss the third subsection of the motion of the hon. member for Malmesbury, that section which deals with increased prices of food.

Mr. Speaker, in the main I cannot disagree at all with the hon. member who has just sat down. In fact, he surprised me by being very positive. By the way he acted today, he undoubtedly served agriculture far better than did his predecessor, the hon. member for Orange Grove, who does not want to listen to me now but is sitting talking to him. The hon. member for Orange Grove definitely did not fare even half as well as the hon. member for Wynberg. I want to compliment the hon. member for Wynberg and thank him for his contribution.

I have no quarrel at all with him concerning the warnings he sounded about over-mechanization, decent housing for our farm labourers and the training of farm labourers. With regard to decent housing for our farm labourers, he said that more money should be made available for this purpose. I am glad to be able to say that this is in fact the case. What is, however, remarkable is the old UP story which we have heard so often; perhaps I should rather say that it is an Opposition story: There should be greater advantages for the farmer, but at the same time the prices of products have to drop for the sake of the consumer without a rise in the tax rate. This very simple way of reasoning is neither here nor there and does not contribute anything. I was glad to hear, however, that apart from all this he is of the opinion that the farmer should stand on his own two feet. In that respect, we agree with him. Due to the limited time at my disposal, I cannot elaborate on his speech any further, but in the course of my speech I hope to deal with the aspects in respect of which further answers must be provided.

I think I will be permitted, firstly, to extend a welcome to the newly elected hon. members who have joined the agricultural group in the House. On the Government side we certainly had a very good crop in 1977. There can be no doubt that our ranks were strengthened by practising farmers who came forward to make a contribution in Parliament for the sake of their people. We are especially grateful for the few outstanding friends who came to Parliament. In their number are two chairmen of control boards. I am grateful that they will help the hon. the Minister and myself to bear the burden. I welcome them, in the first place, because they are acquainted with the industry which both of them served as chairmen and, in the second place, because they will be able to make a contribution in connection with marketing, a question which is certainly an issue for the farmer at the moment.

We have had very interesting acquisitions from the eastern coastal regions of our country. In this regard I am referring to the area extending from the Natal south coast to the Eastern Province. In the past there werz still a few rural Opposition MPs left in the area, but that area has now been cleaned out.

[Inaudible.]

The only one remaining, indeed, is the hon. member for Mooi River. We on this side want to congratulate him on still being here. [Interjections.] If the hon. member had not been such a doubting waverer and if the voters had realized it earlier, he would not have been here either. There is no doubt about that. Nevertheless, I am glad that he is still here, because we were quite sorry to bid farewell to those who have sat there in the past. I want to mention them by name: Mr. Myburgh Streicher, Mr. Bill Deacon, Mr. Wainwright, Mr. Boet van den Heever and then there is another one. [Interjections.] I am referring to Sir de Villiers Graaff. Even though they sat on that side, they are people who made a contribution.

What about Botterbul?

Botterbul did not make a contribution. [Interjections.] Those hon. members did not necessarily represent rural constituencies. On the contrary. They made their stands from urban retreats and made contributions with regard to agriculture. We shall miss them, because their seats have not been filled. That is just how it is. There is another minor point which I want to make in this regard. The hon. members whom I have just mentioned made a contribution in the sense that they kept agriculture out of the political arena.

I should like to mention this here with appreciation. That is why I am glad that the hon. member for Wynberg, as a newcomer in the ranks of the PFP, came to light with such a level-headed speech. That hon. member comes from the Western Cape and is himself a farmer. There is no doubt that he is going to continue a fine old tradition of which we as Cape men are extremely proud. He is the eighth owner of Joostenberg, and we all know Joostenbergvlakte. It is only a short distance from here. So he is farming not far from here. He is the eighth generation on that farm. The Malans arrived here with the Huguenots, and I am the eighth generation. The first Malan— Jean Jacques—arrived here in 1688. That is an indication that the Myburghs have been farming at Joostenberg for a very long time. We are grateful that he is introducing such a fine tradition here. [Interjections.] He must just remember that Wynberg is not Joostenberg.

With the Progs he will come a cropper.

Wynberg is a Prog seat. [Interjections.] In the past the Myburghs of Joostenberg were certainly somewhat inclined even to lend South Africa temporarily to England.

Wynberg is still going to become Nationalist.

That a Myburgh of Joostenberg should want to give South Africa to a Mandela, or any other Black, I really cannot believe. It just cannot be true! [Interjections.] Therefore we welcome him here because we believe that he will speak from his heart, like a farmer, and with his head he will endeavour with us to see to it that the consumers support us because their stomachs are full. We welcome him amongst us in that respect. He has a chance.

I welcome this motion because we will not be talking about agriculture often in this House this year. It is, however, imperative that agriculture should come to the attention of the House and the public at large from time to time. Therefore we thank the hon. member for Malmesbury for coming to light with this motion. Here in Parliament opportunities talk about agriculture occur less and less often. Every year the opportunities are fewer. From one election to the next, the opportunities become fewer. Now with the new official Opposition there will be even fewer opportunities. That bodes ill for us, for the farmer, for the consumer and for the country. We want to lay the blame for the neglect of agriculture squarely at the feet of the Opposition. How the present Official Opposition is going to get out of that mess, I really do not know. But I shall leave this aspect at that.

The agricultural industry as a whole is so interwoven with our national economy that virtually no sector of the agricultural economy is not affected by the weal and woe of the primary producer. There is no doubt about that. It is well-known that the direct contribution of the primary producer to the gross domestic product—the hon. member for Malmesbury has already referred to this—is between 7% and 8%. That represents an amount of R2 299 million. But it is equally true—and this is much too easily lost sight of—that the total economic activity sustained by agriculture represents more than double this amount. It is for this reason that agriculture should be seen and treated as an asset and an economic treasure. South Africa relies very heavily on agricultural exports to help keep our trade balance in the black, with all the other advantages this entails. For the financial year 1976–’77, the GDP of agriculture was R2 299 million, as I have just said, while its export earnings came to R1 220 million—more than 50% of the total earnings. If the prices of products were to keep track with the enormous escalation in the prices of production requisites, there would not be cause for grave concern, but unfortunately this is not the case, as the hon. member for Malmesbury pointed out here. South Africa simply cannot escape the consequences of the long-drawn-out depressionary economic conditions which the world is experiencing and has been trying to escape for so many years. Prices simply do not keep pace with the enormous rise in the cost of production requisites.

The hon. member for Malmesbury illustrated this very clearly by means of statistics. It is undoubtedly true that the position of the farmer is weakening. Official statistics indicate that over the past ten years, from 1966–’67 to 1976–’77, the cost of farming requisites has risen by 133%, while the prices of products have only risen by 111%. The farmer has tried to make up the difference by means of greater productivity and efficiency and to a great extent he succeeded—there is no doubt about that. Greater yields among our maize farmers and our wheat farmers and also among other branches of the industry, bear witness to this. It was accomplished by means of better seed, better planting material and improved techniques. The farmers have really pulled their weight. Unfortunately the present state of affairs cannot continue. We simply cannot count on the increased costs being absorbed by the farmer alone in this way. There is no alternative to an eventual rise in the price of food. The population will simply have to share the responsibility for this with the farmer. They will have to carry the rising production costs with the farmer. This is inevitable. However it is very important, too, that the consumer should take this upon himself in view of the fact that a healthy agricultural industry, a healthy farming sector, is the guarantee for a regular food supply in future.

It is very easy to make a fuss, as we had again recently, when the Press made a fuss about the fact that meat prices in Durban had risen to 240 cents per kg. No farmer can justify that and no farmer wants that, but that is exactly what happened. On 23 December 1977 the price of lamb rose to 244 cents per kg in Durban, but how many lambs were sold at that price?—only 0,54% of the supply tendered for that day. Of the 21 000 lambs tendered—I am taking round figures—only 114 were sold at that price. The impression created amongst the public was that the price of lamb had risen to 244 cents per kg. It is in this regard that the producer and the consumer have to stand together, and the Press must co-operate to inform people.

What about the middleman?

Yes, it is indeed the middleman who has to play his part. That is why it is essential that the hon. member opposite should also plead openly that exploitation of the consumer should be eliminated. He should not become frightened now but should stand up and state frankly, as we on this side are doing today, that the consumer will have to pay a higher price for food, for the sake of the rationalization and for the sake of the future of our country. Surely we have to see to it that our people will have food in times to come.

Sir, we live in a beautiful country. Unfortunately we also live in a country in which the pursuit of agriculture is not so easy. We shall have to face the fact that everyone, the Government sector as well as the private sector, the farmer as well as the consumer, everyone will have to do his bit to ensure that the agricultural industry remains sound. With these few words—unfortunately my time has expired—I conclude my speech.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members of Parliament: This is the first time that I have the honour to speak here and I certainly appreciate the custom that hon. members do not normally interject because, Sir, as you can see, I am frankly very nervous. We returned from Pietermaritzburg last night where we elected a new Senator, and I wish to announce and to congratulate Mr. Warwick Webber, better known on this floor as “Old Botterbul”, the man who represented the Pietermaritzburg South constituency before me, as the new Senator from Natal.

Coming back on the ’plane last night I was sitting next to my eldest daughter who wanted to know how I was going to open my maiden speech. I informed her that the normal practice was to extend congratulations, and to convey to the House how pleased and honoured one is to be here, and then proceed with the full address. She turned to me and said: “Dad, you are starting to sound too much like a politician already.” I would, however, like to say here and now, Sir, that I am not a politician and, frankly, really do not want to be a politician!

I stand here today because I believe and hope that I can make some form of meaningful contribution to this Assembly. I frankly would rather be walking among my cows on the farm, as I did early yesterday morning for an hour or so.

I am, indeed, very pleased that the hon. member for Malmesbury has raised the question of today’s agricultural crisis as the subject is dear to my heart and it is the subject which I would like to speak on today. Before I do so, however, I would like to turn back a few months and mention a man whom I met and for whom I had a great respect. I am sure many of the hon. members also knew him. The man I am talking about is Dr. Robert Smit, and I am truly sorry that he is not sitting here in this House today. I got to know him in Springs, and his untimely death was a shock, not only to myself but to this country and I know that South Africa is going to miss this great man.

Moving to a lighter vein I would like to thank the hon. the Minister—and here comes the “commercial”—because, due to the fact that I represent the Santa Gertrudis Cattle Breeders’ Society as their president, I feel it only right that I should thank the hon. the Minister who saw fit to allow the massive importation of this big red cattle breed during the years 1972 to 1976.

That is why he gets time on television!

I thought that there were going to be no interjections! Thanks are due to the hon. the Minister because during this period 4 000 animals of this breed were imported, mainly from Texas. These animals certainly cost our country R10 million. That is the approximate amount which flowed out of this country. However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to place on record that this investment was a milestone in the cattle industry of this country. No cattle breed has ever grown so rapidly as this breed. In 1972 there were a mere 14 breeders and some 200 head of cattle. Today there are hundreds of Santa cattle breeders and more than 12 000 recorded head of cattle in this country. I am positive that this breed is going to make a tremendous contribution to the South African cattle industry in the future. This is the end of the commercial.

I would now like to turn to the subject which the hon. member for Malmesbury raised in his motion.

*It is true that due to incredible price increases affecting the producer, the farmer is really having a bad time. The hon. member mentioned a number of increases and I would like to illustrate further by using a few additional examples which affect the cattle farmer in particular. During the past four years railage has increased by 140%. The price of fertilizer has gone up by some 120% in four years. Five years ago I paid R8,50 for a roll of barbed wire; the price is now R22,50, representing an increase of 165%. These are some of the factors which affect the cattle farmer for whom I am fighting.

Of the 80 000 farmers in South Africa some 22 000 are cattle farmers and they are presently having a very rough time. It was mentioned earlier that it took 30 years for a farmer to go bankrupt. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to do it within five years today! [Interjections.]

Regarding tractors, their prices have increased during the past four years by more than 120%, and please remember, even cattle farmers require tractors today. The marketing costs that the farmer must bear today, which includes the slaughter costs, abattoir fees, levies and a host of other minor costs to market one animal, has risen by 100%. Four years ago the cost was R18,00; now the marketing cost per animal is R36,00.

Let us now, Sir, take a look at the increased price that the housewife has had to pay for her meat over this same period of four years. In 1974 the housewife paid 235 cents for a kilogram of rump steak; in 1975 it was 253 cents; in 1976, 264 cents and last year— 1977—the price was 272 cents a kilogram. This represents an increase of only 16%. But what did the farmer receive during these years? His net return was 84 cents a kilogram in 1974; in 1975 it was 77 cents; in 1976, 78 cents and in 1977 he received a net of 75 cents a kilo. That is 11% less than he received per kilogram some four years ago, and that while prices of most items purchased by him had increased by more than 100%!

Gentlemen, if I were to offer my farm free to one of you …

Address your offer to Mr. Speaker.

My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker will most probably appreciate the farm more than other hon. members! [Interjections.]

I appreciate my farm, which was, incidentally, previously the property of the hon. member for Mooi River. I think he had to sell, and if things continue to go as they are going today, I might have to as well.

He was much cleverer than you.

Yes, he was much cleverer than I because he sold it to me during 1972 when farm land was at an all-time high! But now I have certainly lost the whole thread of my story! [Interjections.]

†Mr. Speaker, it is really no good merely complaining about the lot of the farmer. The hon. the Deputy Minister has adequately set out all the problems facing us today. The hon. member for Malmesbury told us exactly how poor the position was, and so did the hon. member for Wynberg. We really have a very serious situation. It is, however, all very well to stand up and illustrate how serious the position is, but what are we going to do about it? I would like to put a few suggestions to the hon. the Minister, and I will do so referring particularly to the cattle industry, because it would seem that the grain industry is not doing too badly and is at least making some profit, if one can believe the newspaper reports. I do not know how those profits that farmers were supposed to have made in 1977 were calculated, but it seems as if everybody made profits, but I can assure this House that the cattle farmers definitely did not. The few suggestions I would in all sincerity like to make to the hon. the Minister, should be considered as non-contentious as there seems to be uninamity from all sides of the House in this serious agricultural debate.

Mr. Speaker, let us start with the Meat Board, which, I believe, needs to advertise our product. We have an excellent product, and we are competing with a half a dozen other products on the food market. Two million head of cattle which carry a levy of almost R5,00 each gets slaughtered each year. What percentage of this do we spend to market this meat to the housewife? If we budgeted only R1,00 of this levy per head for advertising, the Meat Board could spend R2 million per year solely on advertising and promoting the meat industry. There is no reason whatsoever why we should not be doing this.

Secondly, the meat industry as a whole needs to be promoted and stimulated. The avenues of promotion should be, firstly, to promote and create a better image for the Meat Board than it enjoys at the present. We are fortunate to have a few excellent top men working at the Meat Board. One example is Dr. Jan Lombard, whom I know personally. Allow men such as this more freedom to promote and create a better image for our Meat Board. Thereafter, Sir, please allow them to perform the function for which the Meat Board was created, namely to promote the sale of meat. Their duty is not to control; we must get away from the idea of controlling prices, and instead promote the product. We have a good product and it should be reasonably easy to advertise, promote and to sell it!

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, we need to look closer into the cost structure of our product. There exists a very normal problem of supply and demand so surely we must look into possible methods of reducing the cost structure of the marketing programme. Profits that are made between the time the animal leaves the farm and the time the consumer buys it requires careful scrutiny.

Mr. Speaker, a change of direction by the Meat Board is truly urgent. We can market beef in various ways. Remembering that 47% of our meat is purchased by the Blacks of South Africa, and in as much as the ratio of Blacks to Whites is 5 to 1, there must still be a tremendous future demand among Blacks. The additional demand could be built on the basis that 50% of any beef carcass virtually has to be turned into sausage, hamburgers or hot dogs. It stands to reason that this is the area that needs to be promoted. We keep talking about the fancy cuts, the steaks and the roasts, but the other 50% of the animal is the part that needs promoting.

Please, Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the hon. the Minister to create new control boards which would be called the Hamburger Control Board, Hot Dog Control Board or the Boerewors Control Board, but if we can get across to the public that a good hamburger—I am not talking about the hamburger one buys at road houses and which tastes like sawdust—or a good piece of boerewors is well worth buying, we could sell and promote millions and millions of rands worth of meat straight to the consumer. Then prices of the top cuts could be brought down and the housewife could still serve her braaivleis. Remember, we have a land of “boerewors, braaivleis, sonskyn en rugby” … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to extend my hearty congratulations to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South on his maiden speech. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member has indicated that he is not a politician and that he does not exactly want to become one. He made a praiseworthy speech on agriculture and if he continues in that vein, he will eventually become a praiseworthy member of this House. However, if he wishes to become a politician I can assure him today that, no matter how long he sits in this House, his party’s policy will never become clear to him. That is why he should rather not try to become a politician. [Interjections.] Nor can I associate myself with the congratulations extended to his party on their choice of a senator in Natal. I know that former hon. member very well and I am afraid I cannot agree with them in their choice.

My time is limited, and I now want to confine myself to the motion. I want to start where the hon. member for Malmesbury left off when he said it was inevitable that there should be an increase in the price of foodstuffs otherwise the farmer would go under. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said that these days one could very easily go bankrupt within five years. There I agree with him. Something will have to be done about that. But I disagree with the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg South and Wynberg in regard to one matter. Incidentally, the hon. member for Wynberg is one of my constituents. However, there are so few of his kindred spirits in my constituency that they did not even nominate a candidate. The result was that he stood in Wynberg. He is a capable young man and I know him and his family very well. His principal told me that he was a brilliant student. A very promising future awaits him in this House if he confines himself to agriculture and does not play at politics. I do not see any future for his party.

I come now to the question of food prices which the hon. member for Malmesbury raised in his motion. It is very difficult to compare the price of food in various countries because there is a continual fluctuation in exchange rates. A few years ago the Union Bank of Switzerland came to light with a very neat plan in order to compare food prices in various countries. They experimented with a small group of people consisting of primary school teachers, bank tellers, motor mechanics and secretaries. They established what these people earned respectively. They then made up a food basket consisting of 37 different food and drink products and determined how long it would take this group of workers to purchase the contents of that basket out of their respective incomes. They then ascertained how long it would take that same group of people to purchase the contents of that basket consisting of 37 varieties of food and drink products in 37 large cities in the world.

The results showed that it would take that group of people only 9,3 hours to earn sufficient money to buy that basket of food in Johannesburg. In London those people would have to work 18,8 hours to earn sufficient money to buy that basket of food. It took twice as long there as in Johannesburg. It took 19,75 hours in Paris, 22,3 hours in Rome, 22,5 hours in Stockholm and 25 hours in Tokyo to earn sufficient money to buy that basket of food. We find today, that the people of South Africa are complaining about food prices. What grounds have they for doing so? In Johannesburg, which is certainly not our cheapest city, that group of people required only 9,3 hours to earn sufficient money to buy that basket of food while 25 hours were required in Tokyo. Do you understand now, Mr. Speaker, why I am in complete agreement with the hon. member for Malmesbury when he says that food prices in this country will definitely have to rise, not only to prevent the farmer from going under, but also to bring us into line with the rest of the world? Naturally, the farmer is also anxious to get a higher price for his products because he too wants to make a decent living. However, one must not forget that like everybody else the farmer and his family are also consumers. Surely all the farmers are also consumers; why should they then force up food prices? Surely they do not produce all the food we require? The farmers in the Free State and Transvaal produce maize. We here in the south produce fruit, wine, milk and wheat. We produce different products and we are all consumers. That is why we all try to produce as economically as possible so as to keep food prices as low as possible. However, when we compare the increase in the price of food with the increase in production costs, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has done, we realize that it is simply impossible for the farmer to carry on as he has been doing. Ever-increasing production costs make it impossible for him to continue supplying the public with food at such low prices.

Take, for example, a staple food like milk. There has been a tremendous increase in the production costs of the dairy farmer. During the past few years the price of milking machinery has increased by over 100%. On one occasion the cost of electricity was increased by an immediate 26%. During the past year the price of cattle feed, which constitutes 70% of the production costs of milk, increased by from 25% to 30%. The railage on maize which constitutes 70% of cattle feed, originally rose by just over 20% but when the rebate on the railage was done away with, it went up by almost 30%. How can the poor dairy farmer manage when there has been no increase in the price of milk? Although all these production costs have risen there has not been a single cent increase in the price of milk. However, we try our best to make ends meet; we are doing so by increasing our production per unit, in other words, the production per cow per lactation period. Throughout the whole Republic in the past decade, namely from 1967 to 1977, the production per cow per lactation period was increased from 4 022 kg to 4 176 kg, an increase of 3,8%. That is in respect of the whole of the Republic. The Western Cape did better. In the case of the Western Cape the increase in production was 4,4%. Mr. Speaker, if you will forgive me my immodesty I should like to mention the fact that during the same ten year period my herd’s production increased by not less than 40%. That shows you what can be done, Sir. When the different areas of the country are compared, one finds that the average production per cow per lactation period in the Western Cape is 4 800 kg in round figures. The figure is 4 200 kg in Natal, 3 600 in the Transvaal and 3 400 kg in the Orange Free State. I think the dairy farmers in the Free State and the Transvaal will have to pull up their socks. Sir, if I may once again be so immodest as to refer to the figures in respect of my own herd then the picture is as follows: According to the official records which I obtained from the Division of Dairying and Animal Husbandry, the figure is 5 960 kg. That means that it is 63% higher than the average figure for the Transvaal. In the case of young cows which have calved for the first time, the figure is 66% higher than that for the Transvaal.

How many udders have your cows got? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, one can only achieve that by means of good management, and above all, good breeding. The tragedy today is that farmers do not avail themselves sufficiently of the facilities at their disposal. I was able over the past 10 years to obtain these fantastic figures by means of artificial insemination. On the whole, however, farmers do not avail themselves sufficiently of that service. At the moment we are in the course of establishing a nation-wide artificial insemination co-operative. By carrying out tests on bulls we are trying to make the best bulls available so that we can increase the production of our national herds considerably. I have proved what is possible, what can be done, and the whole country can do the same if only our farmers would use the facilities available to them. The result will definitely be that we shall be able to produce more cheaply. That is the contribution we as dairy farmers, as producers, are making to the consumer. I am afraid, however, that it is not always appreciated.

Hon. members will probably remember what an outcry there was some 18 months ago when the hon. the Minister of Agriculture increased the price of butter because of the large surplus which had to be disposed of. The Press, the radio, consumers … [Interjections.]

The “Botterbul”! Warwick Webber!

Yes, the hon. new senator who has just been elected in Natal, every economist in the country, the Consumer Council and so forth, all went for the hon. the Minister and wanted to know what kind of an economist he was to increase the price of a product when there was a surplus. There was such an outcry that the hon. the Minister was obliged to lower the price of butter again.

Let us look, however, at the position in other sectors of the economy. Take the motor trade for instance. Mention one sector of the economy in which there is greater overproduction and greater price increases than in the motor trade? There is also the building industry. In which sector today does one find a greater surplus of artisans and other labourers than in the building industry? Moreover, there has been a tremendous increase in the cost of building material and wages. That is the position although there is a tremendous surplus of building material and building workers. There was a sudden increase of 13% in the price of bricks. There was also an increase of 15,21% in the price of cement. What was the position as far as wages were concerned? From July 1977, six months ago, up to today the artisan in the building industry has had three wage increases, from R1,69 per hour to R1,96 per hour. That increase of 27c per hour represents an increase of 16% over a six month period. Have hon. members heard a single person say anything about that? Has the Consumer Council or the Press or the Opposition or any economist said anything about that? Is it fair that there should only be an outcry when the farmer gets an increase? While that is happening in his case, the other sectors of the economy can put up their prices as they please and not a word is said about it.

Now you are making a good speech!

Mr. Speaker, I come now to another product, namely fruit. Time is running out on me; I shall consequently have to be brief. The public complain that they cannot get good fruit because the best fruit is exported. Fruit is a highly perishable commodity and in our warm climate especially fruit does not last long on the shelves. The result is that one cannot give the public the best fruit. If, however, the public is willing to pay a fair price for that perishable product, the fruiterer, the shopkeeper, will be able to keep his fruit in refrigerated counters as is the case today in respect of butter and meat, etc. We will then be able to offer the very best fruit to the public at a reasonable price.

This brings me to the question of wine. It may be argued that wine is not a foodstuff, but food without wine is not as tasty either. In the case of wine the KWV submits recommendations to the hon. the Minister annually and he then determines the price. Over the past three years these increases have been 8%, 7% and 5%. That gives us a total of 20%, while my good friends, the maize farmers have had an increase of 20% in one year. I do not begrudge him that at all, Sir, but surely then we should not be treated in such an unbalanced fashion.

I have only two minutes left and therefore I want to conclude by saying that the public outside can start licking their lips over the most delicious fruit, particularly the finest grapes, that is to be marketed. New varieties have been cultivated. Bien Donne and Earlihane have already been put on the market. Then there is a new variety, QBL, which has not even been named yet. These are absolutely fantastic varieties. I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, that you can start licking your lips over the delicious fruit that is in the offing. In order to achieve the highest production at the lowest cost possible, however, our material should be virus-free. I want to point out that we did not appeal to the Government to provide us with virus-free material. Our boards, the Deciduous Fruit Board, the Dried Fruit Board and the Canning Fruit Board have bought a farm where they render these varieties virus-free by means of a heat process. These varieties are then distributed among the growers and farmers. We shall be marketing fruit and grapes of such quality in the near future that the public can start licking their lips. The public will, however, have to pay a little more for it otherwise we shall not be able to do so.

The hon. member will cause me to adjourn the House earlier!

Mr. Speaker, I have certainly listened to the hon. member for Paarl with a great deal of interest, and I am looking forward to the delicious fruit— especially the delicious grapes—we are going to get, because we in Cape Town are certainly a little disappointed with the fruit this year. We are therefore looking forward, with great anticipation, to the wonderful future. We are quite prepared to pay a higher price. I think consumers generally are very happy indeed to pay higher prices as long as they get quality. I certainly must say, however, that from what I have seen in Cape Town this year, it has been very difficult to purchase any fruit of high quality.

I have found this debate a very interesting one, because not only have we had the hon. the Minister of Agriculture saying that my colleague, the hon. member for Wynberg, talks sense, but we have also had the hon. the Deputy Minister saying the same thing, that the hon. member for Wynberg comes from a very good family and that the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot understand why he consequently joins a party such as this. The hon. the Deputy Minister nevertheless congratulated him on his speech. For my part I want to congratulate hon. members on the other side on what they have said to date, specifically the hon. member for Malmesbury whom I think made an admirable speech. It is the kind of speech that could well have come from these benches. [Interjections.] It is the kind of speech we have made often in this House. He detailed the troubles now besetting the farmers, and troubles are besetting the farming community at the moment. There are very few farmers in South Africa at the moment who are not facing tremendous problems, and dealing with problems they have never had to face before. They are having tremendous difficulties. It has been the contention of members in these benches that the farmers are not getting a fair price for their produce. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, in his maiden speech, spoke about the difficulties in the meat industry. There are, in fact, difficulties there, but he also said that he felt the grain farmers were better off. The mealie farmers, however, are not happy, and I think the hon. the Minister will find this out if he goes to the Sampi congress next week. One only has to look at what the mealie farmers are getting for their produce at the moment. I think it is still R74 per ton. Various estimates of the production costs to the farmer nowadays, however, indicate that it costs him something like R88 per ton to produce something for which he gets R74 per ton. Obviously the mealie farmers are going to ask for a higher price. We in these benches feel they ought to have it because we agree with the hon. member for Malmesbury. The farmers’ costs have risen enormously.

I was looking at an index just the other day. If one takes 100 as a base figure for 1960, one finds that for their necessities farmers are today paying 280 instead of the 100 in 1960. In other words, they are paying nearly three times as much after a period of something like 18 years.

I too, like the hon. member for Paarl who is just leaving, had a look at some figures on vegetable baskets. I think these figures were produced by the Division of Agricultural Marketing Research, a subdivision of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I believe the survey was done in conjunction with the Department of Statistics. They took a food basket of 30 items and compared the figures from January 1974 through to May 1977. The interesting thing about these figures is that they indicate that the percentage taken by the middleman has been increasing steadily over this period in that in 1974, whereas the producer’s share of the final selling cost to the consumer was just over 55%, this has steadily gone down until, in 1977, the producer was only getting 48,7%. In other words, between the farmer’s selling price and the consumer’s buying price, somehow or other, during that very short period, 7% has simply disappeared. It is no longer in the farmer’s pocket or in the consumer’s pocket.

That’s a Prog’s basket.

That sort of basket is going to increase all the time, just as it did in this last election. It is going to get very much bigger indeed. Inflation in our party is going to be of very great benefit to South Africa. We are in the situation where somewhere in the middle a bigger percentage is disappearing. It would be a little unfair to say that the middleman is getting the benefit of the whole 7%. He is not necessarily doing so. There are other things that have happened. There have, for example, been tremendous increases in the cost of transport. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South will know how much it costs him to transport one head of his Santa Gertrudis cattle to market. This is a tremendous problem to all meat farmers at the moment. According to some statistics I saw, it costs something like R60 to get one slaughter ox to market from Messina.

But the farmer is paying for that transport.

Sir, I spend a lot of time on a farm in the Eastern Transvaal. When I go to the local butchery in Belfast, I buy the most beautiful meat and for a cut of fillet I pay R2,20 per kilogram. For a beautiful sirloin or a rumpsteak I pay between R1,60 and R1,80 per kilogram. In Johannesburg, 200 km away, I find I have to pay double or more than double for similar quality meat. Well, Sir, the farmer in the country area is not taking a lower price, but the difference is disappearing somewhere after the product leaves the farmer and is transported to the major urban centres.

I think we must examine this. We in these benches have in the past made suggestions in this regard to the hon. the Minister. I am trying to be as constructive as I possibly can. The hon. the Deputy Minister suggested that agriculture was something that should be taken out of the political arena. To a certain extent I agree with him. It is not largely a political matter. However, I believe I must call the Government to task to a certain extent, because I do not believe they have yet solved their marketing problems. There was a commission of inquiry which looked into this, but the result has been marginal if there was any result at all. We are still faced with tremendous problems as far as marketing is concerned. I do not believe that the present Marketing Act is adequate. I believe that the Commission on marketing did not use enough imagination. I think we have to look at marketing very much more closely than we ever have before.

We have criticized control boards. I must say at the outset that control boards have achieved something. They have achieved a certain stability in respect of farmers’ prices. The farmer is no longer likely to find himself in the situation where he can lose all. A certain stability has come into farming prices. However, I do not believe that control boards are the answer when it comes to marketing agricultural produce. I believe we have to look in another direction for a freer method of marketing. In this regard I should like to play with an idea which I should like to put forward for the hon. the Minister’s consideration.

I believe that, if one has one centralized control board sitting in Pretoria, it will not have the feel of the market. This has been very adequately proved on many occasions. I believe that one should look at the co-operatives as the farmers’ organizations and one should try to introduce them more into the marketing of their members’ products. I believe this might be a way of decentralizing negotiations when it comes to prices. As the hon. the Minister well knows, the mealie farmers, for example, are very fed up because they believe that when the Government, who decide on the final price for mealies, assess a producer’s costs, they do not actually know what they are doing. The farmers say it is unfair because the Government come forward with ideas which in fact do not reflect producers’ costs to mealie farmers. We believe the co-operatives must be in a situation where they have greater scope. In that regard, I am not talking only of co-operatives but of any body that represents farmers. I believe they should be in a better position to negotiate on behalf of farmers, so that one does not have it all pushed down from the top.

The hon. member for Paarl spoke of the dairy industry. During his discussion he told us what a wonderful dairy farmer he himself was. In fact, he suggested that our Transvaal dairy farmers were not as good as they might be because he did far better than they did. The only thing I can say about that is that, when I hear that he has succeeded so well, I must offer my congratulations to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services because if the hon. member for Paarl can increase his milk production like that, all I can say is that anybody can. The department must have done an absolutely splendid job and, certainly, many of our Transvaal dairy farmers have benefited enormously from the department’s services. As far as the marketing of milk in South Africa is concerned, the hon. member for Paarl put forward a rather strange economic argument, strange from my point of view. As he is one of the leading speakers on economic affairs and finance on that side of the House, I find it very strange that such a statement should come from him. He was, in fact, defending the decision to increase the price of butter and cheese at a time a surplus of these products was experienced. He further suggested that now that the building industry had manpower available due to the number of unemployed in that industry, they should lower their fees. I am afraid that that sort of reasoning totally escapes me. Because there are more motorcars …

What is the difference?

There is a tremendous difference. Firstly, I can explain to the hon. the Deputy Minister that a mealie farmer sometimes harvests a larger crop because of good rains. In that case his initial outlay does not compare for instance with a motor-car manufacturing plant. In the latter case the cost of manufacturing two motor-cars is twice the cost of a single car. This, however, is not the case with a mealie crop. I find the argument of the hon. the Deputy Minister quite extraordinary, because there is a difference. [Interjections.] I am not defending manufacturers. I am merely saying that what has happened in the dairy industry, has happened because of the marketing policies of the Government. Because of this, dairy farmers in many instances and in many parts of the country find themselves in tremendous trouble. In fact, the dairy farmers are in a situation where, because of a decline in demand for their products like butter and cheese, they can no longer keep going, because the demand is just not there. The tremendously rising costs of the dairy farmer and a declining market have caused many dairy farmers to find themselves in very great trouble indeed. We have seen many of them leave the land. It is interesting to quote some statistics to indicate just how much the demand for butter has dropped. The figures that I have cover the period between July and September 1977 as compared with the corresponding period the previous year. Whereas 4 224 tons of butter were consumed during that three month period, the year before 6 222 tons were consumed. The market is falling and it is falling because butter is just too expensive; it has priced itself off the market. Thank heavens the hon. the Minister realized this and agreed to drop the price. But by that time he had lost a large part of his market, because by then people were eating margarine and did not want butter anymore. They changed their eating habits.

To win those butter consumers back for the dairy farmer is going to be a hard job for the Dairy Board. It will indeed be a tremendously hard job. They will have to do something about it. In fact, I do not believe that people will be going back to buying butter and cheese. If the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to ask a question about cheese I can also tell him that the demand for cheese has dropped by 14,7% over the same period. If he thinks that is a good idea as far as the cheese manufacturers are concerned and as far as the dairy farmer is concerned, he has another think coming, because they too are suffering. I think the hon. the Minister, if he is thinking of winning people back to buying butter and cheese, might even consider having to pay a subsidy. Of course the hon. the Minister is going to say that we do not have the money for that sort of thing.

With the greatest possible respect, I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister and to the hon. member who has moved this motion that in great measure, the dilemma of the farming community today can be attributed to the fact that our marketing methods are not correct. There is room for considerable improvement in our marketing methods. We know that there is an inflationary situation and we know that the farmer is facing tremendously increased costs. However, the consumer is quite prepared to pay as long as he feels it is justified. But the consumer sees the dairy farmer getting only half of what he pays for the litre of milk over the counter. People say that there is something wrong with the marketing system. Therefore I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that somehow or another—and I think at a later stage, possibly during the agricultural debate, we will be able to make more positive suggestions—one has to do something about the marketing of agricultural produce. That is because we are getting into a situation—as was very ably set out by the hon. member for Malmesbury—where the farmers just cannot continue as they are. He said that farmers were proud people, people who want to stand on their own two feet. I want to agree with him. Additional credit is not the answer. We have to get to the root cause of the problem, and that is that marketing is not adequate.

I have very much pleasure indeed in supporting the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Wynberg.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset in this my first speech in the House I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. Deputy Minister of Agriculture for the personal welcome he extended us newcomers this morning. I hope we shall be able to live up to his expectations. As far as my predecessor is concerned, who served for a long period of 25 years in Parliament, I take it that during that long period of service he formed some friendly associations. I want also to thank all those other members who have smoothed our way—and when I say “our” I refer to myself and to my girl—in settling in here. On this occasion too I should like to express my thanks, in their absence, to those people who were close to me and who served for a long time in this House. I thank them for the example they set and I hope that that example will serve to guide me in the future.

There has been a good deal of reference to costs today, and hon. members have also argued about the cost structure of the maize industry. As a maize farmer, I accept that there is much to be done towards the solution of problems which may arise in future. We shall have to approach these problems in a practical manner to the benefit of the industry, in the first place, but we must also take the country as a whole into account. When one investigates the maize industry and the cost structure of the maize industry, there are certain aspects which one has to take into account. In the first place, one must ascertain the index price rises in regard to one’s own costs and how they will affect the industry as a whole. But that is not the only factor. Many structural changes occur inside an industry as a result of technological development. These structural changes have resulted in the stake in the industry being considerably increased.

The index change which has taken place as a result of prevailing cost inflation, has had an effect, in the first place, on the cost structure within the industry. In the second place there is the increased stake, which means that agriculture has to contribute more in order to increase production. This of course affects the unit price. If we look at the index figure for producer prices and the index figure for production costs, we see an underlying tendency towards a larger increase in the index figure for farming implements than in the index figure for producer prices. This is largely due to the increased stake in farming to be able to produce more and by so doing to force the unit price down.

This did not occur without experiencing the usual problems in the industry. When we investigate the outcome of this, we find that capital requirements for farming have greatly increased. The stake has resulted in more fixed capital having to be invested in land and also in working capital as such.

But there has been another tendency, namely that the need for capital has meant that the demands made on financial institutions have become even greater. Those demands mean that the security which the farmer has to have in order to obtain those means, must be available. When one looks at the index figures in the short term, one sees that land prices have also risen phenomenally in the past. This has been of benefit to the farmer, the maize farmer too, who was already engaged in the industry, because it has meant that he has had the security necessary to obtain the capital needed for the industry’s projects. But the new farmer has needed more capital to enter the industry.

There is another factor which also plays a part, namely that the farming units which did not necessarily have the security of land capital but which were run on a leasehold basis did not find it so easy to obtain the necessary working capital, except when they were able to obtain it on a co-operative basis from the co-operatives. The co-operatives loaned it to them as debt on a yearly basis in expectation of the harvest still to come. There has of course been a lot of uncertainty surrounding this.

When one looks at the capital requirements of agriculture, specifically the maize industry, one must take the return on capital into account, because there must after all be the formation of capital somewhere within the agricultural industry. It is only by way of the formation of capital that takes place in the agricultural industry that we can meet the need for technological development which is required in order to promote better and progressive farming practices.

I want to refer to a publication which was published in May 1977 by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. This publication shows the increase in the total farming expenditure of an average Western Transvaal farm. The expenditure was R3 227 in 1948–’49, R5 695 in 1954–’55, R19 728 in 1969–’70 and then increased to R60 773 in 1975–’76. When one examines the increases one finds it is not quite correct to say that this has taken place on the same unit. There was in fact an increase in the size of each unit from 500 ha in 1948–’49 to 955 ha in 1975–’76. Even when one takes into account the fact that there was a virtual doubling of the surface area of each unit, it is nonetheless disturbing to note that in only the past six years there has been an increase in capital requirements from R19 728 to R60 773. Of this expenditure 62% was for maize production and the rest was for other products. A large slice of the increased costs of production per unit has been due to the increased stake. But if one looks at the net farming income per R100 capital investment, one finds it was 4,25% in 1948–’49. In 1969–’70 it had risen to 14,9%, but in 1975–’76 it had dropped to 2,43% of the R100 capital investment.

When one looks at the interest earnings on an average Western Transvaal farm for that specific year, it may rightly be argued that it was a bad year. But if we look at the average yield for those specific years, we see that the yield for the period 1969–’70 in the Western Transvaal was 1,6 tons per hectare, while the yield for the preceding two years was 1,4 tons per hectare. The net interest earnings of R14 per R100 in that year were therefore far less than in other years. For the period 1975–’76 the yield was 2,3 tons per hectare as against the average return of 1,6 tons per hectare in the following year. On this basis it is obvious that even that year, when there was a low interest return, was not a particularly good year but an average year compared with other production years.

When one sums everything up there is only one conclusion to come to, namely that the formation of capital in agriculture is taking place too slowly in relation to requirements which arise with the passing of time and as a result of circumstances. Adjustments will therefore have to be made in producer prices in the light of circumstances prevailing in specific years. In regard to producer prices, we accept that there are very many other circumstances in a particular industry which prevail in a specific year. At this stage I want to say on behalf of the maize producers that the requirements which were stressed by the hon. member for Malmesbury are also experienced in the maize industry. We accept the fact that certain problems are encountered in the marketing of the product, and that maize is a basic food and serves as a raw material for the production of other agricultural products. The requirements of the maize industry show the same tendency as those shown in relation to agriculture as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and other hon. members for the silence in which you have listened to me. I have pleasure in associating myself with the motion.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to welcome to this House the hon. member for Carletonville and to congratulate him on the speech he has made. He is obviously an expert in that field. It is said that an expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less. But in my view the hon. member has a good knowledge of farming. I feel I must congratulate the NP in their choice of a man who has so much knowledge of agriculture. I think he will make a worthwhile contribution to the debates in this House.

†Mr. Chairman, I think you will allow me just a minute to pay tribute to the hon. member who preceded the hon. member for Carletonville in this House. Oom Cas Greyling was a man who always delivered a speech in this House which was very deeply thought out. For those of us who are not Afrikaans speaking, I must say the level of Afrikaans which he used was something which we admired and enjoyed tremendously. I do not know about his politics; that is something which I shall leave to hon. members on that side. However, I must say Oom Cas was a stimulation to us and we enjoyed the contributions which he made.

The present hon. member for Carletonville, in the course of his speech, put his finger on what is the actual problem that we are discussing here, namely the question of capital in the agricultural industry. The hon. member mentioned the problem which the industry faces of building up capital inside agriculture itself. It would be an ideal situation if agriculturists were able to finance their entire activities themselves. But this is quite obviously impossible at the level at which we operate. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how it is possible to build up capital in an industry when interest rates are running at 14% on borrowed money while the maximum return that one can expect in a good year, with maximum harvests, is something like 5% or 6% at the highest. This is obviously a problem which we are facing in this country in common with every other democratic country. It is a most extraordinary situation.

Agriculture in every single democracy in the world is a major problem. We have found that it is the countries that talk about and espouse the free market system which have been forced to go over to some kind of a managed economy because of the problems posed by the necessity from cheap food for the mass population, and at the same time the problem posed by the fact that farmers have got to earn a reasonable return on the capital that have invested. I have been saying it for a long time, and it is my firm belief, that the population of this country have eaten cheap food at the expense of people who have come into farming and gone out of farming and have lost money in the process. One of the major sources of capital introduced into farming has been money which has been earned outside of agriculture. It comes from people who have bought farms with money that they have succeeded in building up in every other walk of life, for example industry, the legal profession or anywhere else. They have invested their money in agriculture and time after time one finds that there has been a turnover of the members of the farming community through people continually going out of agriculture. Up until very recently people have been able to sell their properties and pull out of agriculture showing a profit on the figure at which they came in. Today one can do that no longer. That is precisely the problem which the hon. the Minister faces. Today a large proportion of the farming population is in financial difficulty. They cannot get out of this difficulty as they were able to do in the past by selling their farms. They cannot do it, because if there is no longer a demand for farm-land which is today regarded as being a poor investment. There is a very clear theme which runs through everything which hon. members on the other side have said, namely that the price of food is going to go up. One is entitled to ask the hon. the Minister on what basis this is going to happen. We are in a state of a managed economy. There are products which are managed by the hon. the Minister and he has to strike a balance between the need of the population to buy food at a figure which they can afford and the need of the farming community to stay in business. I think therefore that one is entitled to say to the hon. the Minister that it is as serious as that today and that it is a question of the farming community staying in business.

In the past it has been possible for farmers to expand their farming operations, to get bigger, to maximize their productivity, to use the economies of scale, etc., but it is becoming almost impossible at the capital cost to the farmer today. The hon. the Minister is faced with the situation that there is a price ceiling on what people are prepared to pay for food. They will pay an absolute minimum, and people will be cutting their food budgets as the prices go higher and higher. That, Mr. Speaker, brings all sorts of problems in its train, such as malnutrition. This, in turn, comes back to the State in another form, because this represents costs which the State has to bear in one way or another. These are problems which the hon. the Minister has to face. He has already said that he cannot afford to subsidize foods. Must he then subsidize interest rates to the farmers? I would like to ask him what he thinks about that. Must he pay the farmers a realistic price for food? Let us understand this clearly. If he pays the farmers a realistic price for food, demands from every single sector will be imposed upon the economy of this country. Everybody who can apply for wage increases is going to do so. It is not an answer simply to say that people have got to pay more for food, because one has to realize that there is a corollary. If they have to pay more for food, there are going to be greater demands for wage increases from the whole of the population. I must say, Sir, that I do not envy the hon. the Minister his task. We found in countries overseas, such as the United States and other countries, that the subsidy bill on food was absolutely astronomical. Furthermore, in the United States one finds the anomalous situation that they produce wheat on a subsidized basis and then sell it at a loss to the Russians. Nevertheless, they produce food and they keep their farmers in business.

I wonder whether the question of the subsidization of interest on money borrowed in the agricultural sector has been considered. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned that Mr. Myburgh Streicher, a good member of the old UP, pleaded for many years for a department of agricultural financing through whose offices the hon. the Minister and his department could carry a greater portion of the capital load which is imposed upon farmers. I do not think, however, that anybody would attempt to pretend that, bearing in mind the needs that exist in agriculture today for capital, the State could really bear such a burden. Nevertheless, there is money available and people will lend money to farmers. On the other hand, no farmer in his right mind would borrow money at 14%. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to consider a scheme or system whereby farmers can have access to capital. They obviously have to have capital to work. This is risk capital; it is riskier than any other sort of capital you can think of. When one considers the weather, that in itself is bad enough, but there are other factors as well. Take, for example, the question of tractors in the agricultural industry. In South Africa the utilization of spare parts for tractors is higher than in any other country in the world. We use more spare parts per unit than any other country in the world, for very obvious reasons. These reasons are related directly to the fact that our labour is not really adequately trained for the use of complicated machinery such as that in which farmers invest today. Since this is risk capital, one can hardly expect farmers to go and borrow money at high rates and invest it in an industry in which they can lose the whole lot so easily, particularly bearing in mind the sort of climatic conditions we have here in South Africa.

I think the hon. the Minister owes it to this House to tell us what the implications are of this motion. The hon. member for Malmesbury was quite clear. He said that food was going to cost more. Every member who has spoken on that side has said that food is going to cost more. The hon. member for Carletonville came forward with a very powerful argument to the effect that food was going to cost more. The hon. the Minister must therefore tell us whether the Cabinet realizes the implications of this and whether they are prepared to take whatever action is going to be necessary. The fact that he has the support of the parties on this side of the House will surely strengthen his arm when he goes to the Cabinet to say that food is going to cost more in order to keep the farming industry solvent and flourishing. I do not think, however, that the Minister must close his eyes to the fact that this is going to raise as many problems as those he is trying to solve with the announcement he is going to make. We on this side of the House are quite happy to accept the motion the hon. member has put forward. We await the reply of the hon. the Minister with a great deal of interest.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Malmesbury has rightly remarked that this is no jeremiad, but an occasion for us to review the facts. All the cost increases which have been referred to have in fact taken place. On that score I cannot refute any of the arguments advanced by hon. members on both sides of the House. The hon. member for Mooi River asked for a definite solution or directive. He wanted to know where we were going. Of course, there are several aspects we have to bear in mind. We cannot expect the farmer to regard agriculture as a charitable enterprise. It is a business enterprise. According to figures released by the Department of Agriculture, the return in agriculture is 6,3%. Ten years ago, it was 6,4%. For ten years the figure has remained almost unchanged—the least profitable investment in the Republic. It is very easy for me to say to someone: “My friend, if you have your wits about you, you will not get involved in agriculture.” However, it is my job to create confidence in the industry. One cannot only look at the return it offers. There are several other aspects which have to be considered as well.

There is one thing which I find tragic. In the past one could say that one was investing in agricultural land at a rate of 6%, while borrowing the money for this at an interest rate of 10%—a rate which has now risen to 13,5%—because agricultural land had increased in value. The hon. member for Mooi River is quite right in saying that a man cannot sell his farm today. The reason for that is financial, and this in turn reflects a world trend. This is one of our problems today. People are not interested in investing money, with a view to a possible appreciation, in something which is not very profitable as it is.

Meanwhile, costs keep rising. On the part of the Ministry we do our very best to keep pace with the increase in costs. I want to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. By the way, he has made his maiden speech in this House and I want to congratulate him on it. He is a practical farmer who is able to help us today with regard to these problems. I also thank him for his positive approach to this matter.

The hon. member referred to the meat price. In 1972 the floor price of beef was 44 cent a kg. Last year it was 95 cents a kg. So there has been an increase of 115%. However, the hon. member must be realistic. He cannot compare the prices of the auction held at a certain date with those of an auction at the end of last year. He must look at the floor price which serves as security for the farmer.

Now I want to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Mooi River. No hon. member makes a mistake in saying that we have no alternative. We can only do one of two things. In the first place there is the alternative of a Government subsidy to the consumer by means of which the farmer can receive a price for his products which will enable him to remain in the industry. On the other hand, there is the alternative of a price increase which will have to be borne by the consumer. We have to decide between these two alternatives. The rest of the talk we can just forget about. The question is whether the consumer will be able to absorb this. Then the hon. member for Orange Grove alleges … Would one have believed that a grown man could allege today that the production cost of maize is R88 a ton? However, this is what happens when one farms in Orange Grove. [Interjections.] Matters such as these are being worked out and debated continually.

Allow me to refer just to the price of maize. Five years ago, in 1972, the price of maize was R37,90 a ton. It is now R74. So there has been an increase of 113%. That increase was essential in order to keep the industry viable. Now the hon. member for Orange Grove alleges that he disagrees with the hon. member for Paarl when the latter says quite clearly that there is a surplus of bricks and that the price of bricks is nevertheless increasing. He also disagrees with the hon. member for Paarl when the latter says that there is a hullabaloo because there is a butter surplus and the price of butter is nevertheless increased. It may be that the price of bricks is increasing. Why? Because bricks are not a sensitive article. In determining food prices, certain things have to be considered. The housewife has to buy milk and bread every day, and every day she is furious all over again. However, she buys bricks only once in her life. That is why we have that sensivity. The increase in the amount spent on food by the housewife in our country is much slower, relatively speaking, than the increase in her expenditure on other articles. That is why I was so glad when the hon. member for Paarl pointed out how many hours’ earnings fill the food basket. In Johannesburg it takes nine hours’ earnings, as against 25 hours’ earnings in Tokyo to fill the same food basket.

If hon. members are really in earnest about this matter, they will support me. There are dairy farmers today who can no longer survive in the industry. Will the hon. member support me when I say that a subsidy of one cent on a litre of milk will cost the State R11 million? The taxpayer must be realistic. To subsidize milk would be to attempt the impossible. One cent on a litre means nothing.

I did not suggest a subsidy.

The hon. member did not suggest a subsidy, but if I announced a price increase in milk, would he support me? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the fact—I am sure he is—that the producer of milk is paid something like 14c per litre whilst the consumer pays 30c per litre for milk over the counter?

I am fully aware of that. If the hon. member wants me to, I can give him a licence to distribute milk. I can even give him a licence to open a retail butchery. Thirty-five retail butchers closed down in the Vaal Triangle last year. Because there is money in it? If one wants to distribute milk, one must have a pasteurization plant, one must have cartons, one must pack the product, one must have bottles and one must deliver the milk—und so weiter, und so weiter!

*The hon. member should not aggravate the farmer by referring to the price of the end product.

He made a pointed reference to the middle man. The department, too, is now working with the food basket idea. However, do hon. members know that the farmer’s share in the food basket has decreased by 4,5%? This is the only part of the population which has taken a cut in its salary! It is commendable to the representative of 78 000 customers who have actually taken a cut in their salary and are not talking about strikes. The middle man who is referred to is not the retailer who does business. Let us take sweetcorn as an example. We could take any other canned product. The farmer gets a certain amount per ton, but in between we have the man who has to can it. Then there are things like the can, the carton, the sugar, the transport and the lable. The cost of all these things has gone up. Now I am not even talking about electricity.

And railage!

Yes, railage too. This is really what we mean when speaking of the middle man, not the man behind the counter. When we are talking about the middle man, it is a term including all these cost items in between. But the farmer’s price for these products has gone down while the housewife has to pay a good deal more.

The railage is what makes it so expensive.

The responsible Minister is not here, otherwise I would have agreed with you. I shall come presently to the question asked by the hon. member for Malmesbury. The hon. member mentioned a few things, and it was so essential that he should have introduced this motion. I agree with him that no provision has been made for replacement. I just want to mention a few figures. A Massey-Ferguson 188 tractor—we all know that tractor—cost R4 069 three years ago. The same tractor now costs R7 598. A John Deer tractor of the same horse power cost R6 700. It now costs R12 800. Now we come to combines—and there sits Malcomess 1530! Their price has gone up from R14 900 to R27 800. These items have to be imported. They are not locally manufactured. We have not the turnover to be able to build our own combines. Therefore they are imported.

America also finds itself in a dilemma. I quote from the Washington Post of a week ago. The heading is “Farm strike leaders urge Bergland to resign”. He is my counterpart in America. I quote—

It seems to me that the writing is on the wall for me. I have had my chips! This is not only a South African problem; it is a world-wide problem. In fact, it is much more of a problem in other countries.

I should like to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that it would have been a tragedy for our farmers if we had not had our board of control system and if our wheat and maize process had had to fluctuate as happened on the Chicago market when the price dropped from R100 a ton to R60 a ton within 14 days. The Government contributes R52 million in respect of the storage, the handling and certain other costs for the consumer—not for the farmer—to keep the maize price stable at R74 a ton. What are we doing this year?

Tell the Sampi people that next week.

The hon. member refers to Sampi. I shall not talk about that, because it might lead to trouble. The hon. members opposite should just be realistic. Let us look at the maize price of this year. This also brings me to the question asked by the hon. member for Mooi River. Suppose the production costs have increased by R6 a ton and the price is R7 a ton. The farmer is entitled to R6 a ton, but if the Government cannot subsidize the consumer, the price has to be increased by R6 a ton this year, i.e. the price has to R80 a ton. Then who will have to foot the bill? The dairy farmer, the pig farmer and the chicken farmer will just have to pay more. Once again our own farmers are the ones who have to pay. This in turn will be reflected by the egg and the litre of milk that the housewife buys. That is where the trouble lies. The housewife has certain fixed items of expenditure. She spends 24% of her budget on food in South Africa today. When she gets her salary cheque at the end of the month, there are certain fixed items she has to pay for: flat rental; water and electricity, otherwise they will be cut off; and the television instalment. However, she cheats in the kitchen. There she cuts the meat into smaller portions and she drinks half a litre of milk instead of a litre. The result is that we are faced with surpluses. What are we to do with those surpluses? We have to sell them in a world market which has largely collapsed. In respect of almost every agricultural product we are dependant on the export market. We have a surplus of cotton, tobacco, wool, wheat, maize, etc. The only things we import are coffee and rice. Of all the other things we produce a surplus.

Let us be realistic, therefore, and look into the future with optimism. We have been blessed with exceptionally good rainfall for three years. Hon. members would have sung a different tune if there had been shortages. We cannot be thankful enough for the rain we have had in the summer rainfall areas, which enabled us to have a harvest again to keep the men going. We can disagree with one another politically. However, the hon. members opposite were so decent in their arguments today that I can hardly believe that any one of them has ever been a Prog in his life. They looked at these things realistically. I just ask that the message be conveyed to the housewife that we should rather be prepared today to spend a little more on food and less on luxuries. A litre of Coca Cola costs 41 cents, and when one returns the bottle one gets the deposit back. In this respect Coca Cola is better than the Hertzogites. Nevertheless, Coca Cola costs more than 30 cents a litre, while a litre of milk can be bought over the counter for 27 cents. What is wrong with telling the housewife that she has to pay three cents more for the litre of milk?

Then there is the bread price. It is not pleasant for me to increase the bread price. However, as tax-payers hon. members know that the subsidy on bread has been reduced from R90 million to R60 million. This year the responsible Minister told me: “I do not have more than R45 million available for it. ” The price of brown bread has remained 16cents. White bread used to cost 20 cents and we have increased it to 25 cents. If we tell the housewife at the end of the year: “The subsidy of R45 million is not enough; give us two cents or three cents more for a loaf of brown bread,” would it be such a disgrace? Will hon. members help me in this embarrassment to get this message sold? What is behind the blow of the axe? We must enable the producer to go on producing, for the day may come when the housewife will have to queue to buy food, because there will be no food to eat. We must prevent the agricultural industry from receiving such a shock that the man who is still prepared to produce will also end up by leaving the industry. Then there will be shortages.

The hon. member for Paarl pointed out the importance of efficiency. We must not lose sight of that. If one is efficient and one can increase one’s average milk production to 22 litres a cow, as he did, while the average milk production in the Republic is 10 litres per cow per day at the moment, that is a solution in itself. However, then one will be faced with surpluses again. But efficiency has increased to such an extent that South African farmers have doubled their production in the space of 12 years. What the hon. member said in that connection is very important.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member for Carletonville has come to Parliament. I have known him for a long time, for he is chairman of the Maize Board. He speaks the language of the farmers and it is a pleasure to negotiate a price with such a man, not only for the benefit of the producer, but also for the benefit of the consumer. I thank that hon. member for having come here; he should have done so long ago.

I have just about a minute left. For this reason I shall have to leave the arguments of the other hon. members. We are not farming for today; we are farming for posterity. We are farming for the children who will have to succeed us one day. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what I am afraid of? I am afraid that we may begin to practise wasteful exploitation because of the increase in production costs. There are farmers in my vicinity who tell me that the price of fertilizer is so high that they can no longer apply the full amount of fertilizer. They are now relying on reserves contained in the soil. That is wasteful exploitation, because we are no longer keeping the potash, phosphate and nitrogen levels in our soil constant because we cannot afford to do so. I consider this to be one of the greatest dangers, i.e. that we are beginning to exhaust the reserves of nutrients in our soil. If we do that, we are heading for trouble.

I should like to say something about the poultry industry as well. In that case, too, there are factors influencing the industry. All goes well when the overseas prices and the weather are right. Then the price of wool and the price of mutton are not too bad. The price of mohair, too, is favourable at the moment, and the hon. member for Graaff Reinet, who produces mohair, will admit that his difficulties have to do with income tax. [Interjections.]

As far as the long term is concerned, I am having talks next week with members of the S.A. Agricultural Union in the presence of the Minister of Economic Affairs and the Minister of Finance. We have seen this problem coming from a long way off and at these talks we shall see what we can do regarding financing. One bleeds to death paying interest rates of 13,5%. It is no longer the category 3 farmer who is in trouble. It is no longer just the average farmer who is having trouble, but also the big farmer who complains that he cannot get any financing and that he cannot pay interest at 13,5%. We are going to examine this problem sympathetically to see whether we cannot find methods and whether we cannot do something about it in spite of the prevailing world situation. We have to export, and it is a proud achievement to be able to say that our country produces 40% of the food of Africa. Because we want to maintain that achievement, this debate we are having here can only be to our advantage. I believe the housewife will understand and I believe, too, that the Press will begin to inform the housewife if she does complain. They can advise her rather to be furious with the Minister of Agriculture, for it is more important to us to have a happy farming community to produce food, not only for us, but for hungry Africa as well. Thank you very much for this debate.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendment lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I am introducing this motion because I believe that these measures are an embarrassment to South Africa, that they cause unnecessary suffering and tension between the various population groups and that repealing them would offer the Government an excellent opportunity to keep its promise that it is taking active steps to move away from racial discrimination in South Africa. I am not going to motivate all the reasons, for my colleagues will discuss some of the reasons further. I want to discuss the motion on a completely unemotional level in the hope that a fruitful debate will ensue, from the opposite side of the House as well.

The measures to which reference is made, are the legal symbols of a debate that has been in progress in South Africa since the first White settlement here at the Cape. Several attempts have been made to pilot such legislation through the House or to repeal such legislation. The hon. member for Houghton has already tried to get rid of such legislation on two previous occasions. The first attempts that were made to pilot this type of legislation through the House, were made by Tielman Roos in 1927. Subsequently, in 1937 and also in 1939, commissions of inquiry investigated the matter further. The prohibition of mixed marriages was one of the first statutory measures which the Government passed in Parliament.

It is not my intention to repeat all the arguments in favour of and against the measure, for these are too well known to all of us. To my mind it is necessary that we gain a sense of perspective for the problems and arguments centring round the measures to which I will be referring today. Such perspective we find, for instance, in a publication by Prof. Joubert of the University of Stellenbosch. In the Brandpunt series he wrote a book on the issue entitled: “Met iemand van ’n ander kleur.” In this book he maintained that in the course of time various justifications and rationalizations have occurred for the need to prohibit sexual relations across the boundary lines. For instance, he says that the initial argument was that they could not take place between Christians and non-Christians. As it happened, this distinction conformed with the one between Black and White at that stage, but as Blacks became Christians, this argument ceased to exist. Then there was the argument that there should be no lowering of living standards and as it happened, this also conformed with the distinction between Black and White. When this distinction also ceased to exist due to the fact that there was an upgrading in the standard of living of Blacks in some cases, a new argument was sought. The new argument was that it was a question of purity of race and the maintenance of racial identity. In due course this justification also fell into disfavour, for the simple reason that it contained a built-in contradiction. The contradiction was: If it is a fact that groups of people wish to preserve their identity and if this is a particularly strong motivation in them, surely no laws are necessary to bring this about. Prof. Joubert concludes his analysis by saying that the latest justification and the latest rationalization which one finds for this, is the fact that laws are simply necessary because they have become part of the existing political dispensation. I quote his words—

He continues—

Now the question arises: Is this justification also ceasing to exist? As changes in rationalization and justifications took place in the course of time, the question now arises whether the latest justification is not losing its strength. Are there enough groups and individuals in society that believe that we can no longer justify these two statutory measures by referring to the existing political policy and the existing political order?

There are indications that this is indeed the case. The first indication to which I wish to refer, is a report of the Commission of Inquiry into Matters concerning the Coloured Population Group, the Erika Theron report. I wish to refer to recommendation No. 4 of the commission, page 481 of the report, and quote very briefly the motivation for this recommendation—

This was the commission’s motivation for their recommendation and I associate myself with that motivation as it is also part of my own motivation. It is also interesting to note that 12 of the 16 members of the commission supported this type of proposal. The others recommended that the Act concerned should not immediately be repealed, but that serious consideration should be given to its repeal. Twelve out of 16 is far more than a two-thirds majority; it is a dangerous majority. In any case, the commission made this recommendation.

Other examples come from the Dutch Reformed Church which has given serious consideration to these problems. They came to the conclusion that this type of measure cannot be defended on Biblical grounds. Letters by churchmen pronouncing upon the question, also appeared in the newspapers. In Die Burger of 14 July 1977, “Predikant”, Western Cape, wrote, with reference to the Immorality Act—

We also had Synodal pronouncements in this regard. I cannot go into all of them in detail.

South African newspaper editors expressed the same opinions. For example, in the leading article in Rapport of 10 July 1977, it was stated—

In this leading article there was a clear indication that there has been a change of opinion.

The other indication that a change of climate is taking place, we find of course among members of the House of Assembly itself, as well as certain Cabinet Ministers who made pronouncements in this regard. In Rapport of 10 July 1977 it was reported that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, who has just spoken, had said—

In the same way I believe that a believer does not need an Act to stop this type of intercourse with people of another colour.

What else did he say?

He also said … [Interjections.] The hon. members must please give me a chance. I am aware of the fact that not all of them are given an opportunity to speak and therefore shout in the House simply to be able to say that they got a word in edgeways. I shall return to that argument later. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture also said that he thought the Act was necessary because the people who contravene this Act, do not know our traditions. The hon. members would do well to ascertain which people are found guilty of contravening this Act. They are not foreigners. The vast majority of them have well-known surnames. They know the traditions.

Slabberts?

No, these are not Slabberts, but there could possibly be a few Van der Merwes. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Pretoria Central said—

I am simply trying to indicate that there are indications that there is also a change of climate on that side.

Another example demonstrating that a change in climate is taking place, is the occurrences in South West Africa. The Act has been repealed there. One of the most important people who played a part in having the Act repealed in South West Africa, was a former Cabinet Minister, i.e. Mr. A. H. du Plessis. On the subject of this issue he stated—

I think he is referring here to the same NP as the one with whom we are arguing at present. He went on to say—

I assume that this is the same party, with the same policy. I refer to all these various examples of a change in climate which has taken place. In view of this, I ask: Are we now entering a new era? Has a new rationalization come into existence? To put it concisely and succinctly, is there any chance whatsoever that this motion of mine will be accepted? In my opinion there is proof to the contrary. I do not think a new era is coming into existence. I may be wrong, but I wish to advance reasons why I hold this opinion. One of the reasons was the reaction of the Government to the Erika Theron Report. At that stage the Government was not prepared to set aside these measures. I quote from page 7 of the White Paper of the Government—

This is a generally acknowledged fact—

The Government went on to state—

Here they were referring to the legislation—

This reasoning is so pathetic that it is almost underserving of comment. For instance, reference is made to cultural criteria, social sanctions and the necessity for a social balance. Each of these concepts is a contradiction of the necessity for legislation of this nature, for if it is true—this is an old argument—that tremendous social sanctions against such conduct exist, it is unnecessary to implement and maintain the measures prohibiting such action. It means that society itself will see to this. The same argument applies in the case of cultural criteria or the social balance. In other words, it is absolutely futile to think that one can create a social balance by way of formal legislation if the forces necessary for such a balance, are not already present in the community.

Even though I do not accept this motivation of the Government in the White Paper, I nevertheless believe that the real reason is not such a pious one. The real reason for this legislation is that it is quite simply necessary on account of the existing political dispensation. This Government’s policy cannot be maintained and implemented without these measures contained in the Statute Book.

†Mr. Speaker, the truth is that separate development cannot survive without these laws. Therein lies the embarrassment for us all, but particularly for the Government, for it is difficult—and I can understand that—to accept that behind all the lofty verbiage about plural democracy, self-determination of nations and separate freedoms lies, in the last analysis, a nasty and discriminatory little piece of legislation like the one I have referred to today. They cannot survive without it. This is the simple truth.

I want to illustrate why it is necessary. I realize what dilemma the Government is facing. The logic of the argument is that if people are allowed to make love to each other, they should surely be allowed to marry each other. If one then gets rid of section 16, it stands to reason that one must get rid of the Mixed Marriages Act. However, if it happens that children are born out of such a marriage, one has to decide in terms of the prevailing situation how to classify them. That is very difficult. Therefore you will have to get rid of the Population Registration Act. But surely it would be ridiculous to allow people to live together and have children, but not allow them to live in the same house. Therefore you will have to get rid of the Group Areas Act. Once you get rid of the Group Areas Act, the question arises: Why is it necessary to have separate educational institutions? Why is it necessary to have job reservation on a racial basis? Why is it necessary to have White trade unions? Why is it necessary to have homeland citizenship, separate political institutions, etc.? The point that I am trying to make is that if the Government should really move away from this legislation, it would be the start of a massive frontal attack on the whole practice of apartheid; maybe not the ideology. One can produce enough icing-sugar to make the ideology look attractive. But the practice of apartheid will be severely affected if one starts moving away in this fashion. This has been made perfectly clear in a book called Credo van die Afrikaner written by Dr. Andries Treurnicht, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Education and Training. I want to applaud him. He is absolutely consistent in the way in which he argues. I am not saying this to embarrass him. It is a clear-cut argument. It is honest in terms of its assumptions and I can understand it. He has made the point that if you try to destroy small apartheid, you cannot have big apartheid.

*Or in those fine words he used: One must not think that one is going to preserve major apartheid by wishing to break it down bit by bit. If these Acts are removed from the Statute Book, one is starting to break it down bit by bit as I have told you it can happen. And this precisely what has happened in South West Africa.

†Mr. Speaker, what happened in South West Africa is that they could only get rid of these laws after they had abandoned separate development; not before. That is why the hon. A. H. du Plessis can say what he said there, because he knew that they were no longer bound by the fundamental assumption of separate development. Therefore he could say it. The Mixed Marriages Act, “teken ’n brief; weg is hy!” He said that those provisions could go one by one and they went. That is why he was able to do that.Since that has happened, we have not had daily reports on how our identities are collapsing in South West Africa. We have not had daily reports of massive group sex across the colour line in South West Africa. In fact, we have had reports of how the political order is changing in South West Africa, but we have not had all those assumptions used by those hon. members. We have had no reports on that, unless it has been covered up. I am not aware of it. Funnily enough, I have heard that in South West Africa—I do not know how true this is—there is a greater hesitancy to have sex across the colour line since they have dropped the law. Do hon. members know why? It is because the women can sue for maintenance. That is a new consideration; they can sue for maintenance, whereas before they could not.

If this is so that these laws form a fundamental aspect of the practice of the Government’s policy, the implementation of it, then I especially want to appeal to those hon. members on that side of the House who sometimes make verligte noises about these Acts. There are those who say that these Acts are not necessary. I have referred to them. I have mentioned some of them. There are others whom I cannot refer to at the moment. We know whom we are talking about. They have said it is not necessary and that they want to get rid of these Acts. Those hon. members are either confused or they really want to get rid of separate development. If it is the latter, I shall do everything within my power to assist them to get rid of it. But if it is the former, I hope that they are no longer confused and that they understand the dilemma in which that party is caught up, viz. that they cannot get rid of this type of argument. If they do understand that they have been confused, they must not talk this way in the future any more, because they simply confuse the whole English Press and the diplomatic corps. Every time one of them speaks like that, they think that this is a new “verligte kiem” on the horizon of Afrikaner Nationalist politics. They wine and dine them and everybody wants to listen to them. However, nothing really changes. When they come back to Parliament, it is the same old story. The first caucus meeting is held in which they are told what mistakes they have made during the recess and if they have said that these measures must disappear, then they are in trouble. I am just assuming this, Mr. Speaker; I have no definite knowledge. However, to the Afrikaans newspaper editors who make the occasional reference to this I also want to say: Please stop talking about the necessity of this moving away without really motivating it, because to the extent that you do it, sometimes you are fortunate and you get a cultural exchange or a scholarship to America, but it really does not change anything in South Africa. It raises false expectations. The point is that if hon. members on the opposite side are honest, they will realize that separate development is a package deal. One cannot buy part of it, saying one likes that part but not the rest of it. It is a package deal. It is a consistent philosophy and policy.

You are beginning to see the light!

I have always known that. However, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act form an integral part of that policy. That I want to say particularly to hon. members on the other side who tend to have delusions of grandeur, hon. members who live with the illusion that they will be able to reform the NP from within by clutching a hidden agenda to their breasts saying: “We will go along with what they say, but some time or other we are really going to bring about those changes.” It simply raises false expectations. However, I may be wrong, of course. It may be that I have misconstrued the argument.

Not maybe. Definitely!

The hon. the Minister of National Education says: “Not maybe. Definitely.” If that is so, is the hon. the Minister saying that these two Acts do not form an integral part of the policy of the Government? Is he saying that they are dispensable, that they are not necessary, that we can get rid of them? I give him the opportunity now to state whether that is indeed so. [Interjections.] If it is not so, and if my argument is wrong, then this is an ideal opportunity for hon. members opposite to get up and support my motion. Let them show their support now. Let them not wait for the recess. Let them use Parliament. The Press is here. Everybody is here. Let us use this opportunity to really show what we feel about this legislation and about how we want to change it. Let them not wait for a nice little meeting somewhere on the East Rand where nobody can really get at them to say: “I really think this legislation is no good. We must get rid of it.” Everybody becomes so excited, but nothing really happens. That is the problem.

I want to prevent that kind of false raising of expectations. The Government constantly accuses us of raising the expectations of the Blacks. I want to tell those hon. “verligte” members that they are raising our expectations. They are frustrating us. [Interjections.] They are making us feel very anxious. We have to go and explain to people that NP members are really not sure of what they are saying. I want to urge hon. members opposite please to use this opportunity to say once and for all what they feel about this legislation. [Interjections.] However, if they cannot do so, they should please be honest and not speak along those lines in future.

They will obviously have an opportunity, after I have spoken, to make a complete fool of me. They can make complete foolishness of the arguments I have used and of the points I have raised. However, let me assure them that I will be more than happy to be made a fool of in this respect if, for the good of us all, they will support us in getting rid of this legislation. I will then be only too happy to be made a fool of. However, then they must do so here and now.

I suspect, however, that those hon. members have neither the courage nor the conviction to really do so now, while the opportunity is at hand, because these two pieces of legislation, more than anything else, call the bluff of the “verligte Afrikaner” ideal. That is what it does. It simply says to them: “Now, put your money where your mouth is when you talk about this.” As for myself, I have no problem. I have said initially that I reject this legislation. I reject discriminatory legislation and I have to be consistent. I can be attacked. There may be weaknesses in my argument, weaknesses upon which I can be attacked. Like the hon. the Deputy Minister of Education and Training, I will try to be as consistent as he is, so that we can have a real debate, but, I cannot bear sheep in sheeps’ clothing coming to Parliament with the argument that they want to transform society, contending that the NP is the vehicle for verligte change, using endless hours of debate and television time during the election campaign and during the recess, but failing to show any sign of what they have promised as soon as they return to this House. We have the opportunity now. Let those hon. members please get up now and support this motion.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is an opportunistic gesture by an opportunistic hon. member of an opportunistic party. During the course of last year he discovered that there was a public debate being held in NP circles concerning the Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act. It often happens that supporters of the National Party debate matters of public interest in public and in the Press. The reason why we do this is that we can conduct an intelligent debate amongst ourselves. We can no longer conduct an intelligent debate with that party, because they do not have a leg to stand on any more. During the debate which took place last year in particular, they saw in their opportunism that they might be able to cause a breach in the wall of solidarity of the NP. However, I want to tell that hon. member that although he grew up in Pietersburg, and later in Stellenbosch, he has no hope of causing a breach in the ranks of the NP.

When the hon. member began, he tried to argue on a scientific basis. After that, he started the policy of the NP very well. I am quite in agreement with him there; it is part of the policy of the NP, and he must accept this. We stand by this, Sir, and we refuse to say that it is discriminatory. We do not say we are better than the others; we are all creatures of God, but we are different from them, and that is why we have the right to segregate ourselves. That is why we are entitled to maintain our identity. After all, these is nothing wrong with that. If a White man commits an offence, he is prosecuted too. What is discriminatory about that?

At the end of his speech the hon. member simply became a clown. In the process he clearly proved how opportunistic the approach of that party is. Amongst other things, the PFP commits itself to the “protection of the religion, language and cultural heritages of the various groups forming the South African nation”. How are they going to do this? How are they going to protect the cultural heritages of every group by means of their policy and by doing away with this important legislation? As I said, Sir, it is an act of opportunism. Intensive propaganda is always being made about the fate of the couple who are attracted to one another across the colour bar. It is said that there is no opportunity for them to show their affection for one another. Everything has to take place in secret. But, Sir, do we ever hear or read about the disasters when these marriages end up on the rocks, as happened for example in the majority of marriages between Americans and Japanese after the occupation of Japan by Gen. McArthur and his troops? In this regard I should like to refer to an article which appeared in The Argus on 7 February 1978. I quote from this report which comes from Tokyo—

Is there a law against it in Japan?

Does that hon. member object to it because there is a law against it? Is he then opposed to the law which controls theft? Is he opposed to the law which prohibits murder? Is he opposed to the law which prohibits assault? What type of person objects to protection in a certain situation simply because there is a law which applies that protection? Is that the crux of the hon. member’s objection to this situation?

Do we ever hear about the social problems which result from mixegenation? Do we ever hear about the children who have no family tradition to be proud of or in which to find inspiration for the future? We are living in a complicated community which has been formed over the years. How are these children, however, to be classified? Where will they go to school? There are several other social and psychological problems involved here. It is no use arguing that the PFP itself is opposed to immorality or mixed marriages. It is merely the legal ban on it that they are actually objecting to. An argument like this simply does not make sense to me. A reductio ad absurdum would be: Decent people do not murder or steal; public opinion is opposed to it; therefore do away with those laws which make it a crime! Yet the Statute Book contains many provisions which would have been unnecessary if all people had maintained a high moral standard.

However, what do Black people themselves say about this? I quote from The World of 8 July 1977—

And on 7 July 1977—

Should we move on an amendment along those lines?

The hon. member referred to the findings of the Erika Theron Commission. Learned gentlemen have made certain statements as the result of the findings of that commission. They said that the results of the commission did not arise from a thorough inquiry into these laws by the commission. Nor was there any evidence before the commission which indicated that there was statistical or any other information which could have caused them to come to that conclusion. As the hon. member for Piketberg said at the time, in many cases it was the expression of preconceived personal points of view. What was, however, very clear—something which was emphasized by the hon. member for Piketberg—is the fact that 72,2% of the Coloureds are proud of their own identity and that they would like to maintain it.

The Government’s standpoint in connection with this matter has also been dealt with by the hon. member for Rondebosch. It is a pure, correct one. The Acts are not discriminatory, because they also apply to Whites too.

I did not say that.

I say this is what the Government says. This is our policy too and it is pure and correct. When the Mixed Marriages Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1949, 30 of the then 48 States of the USA had similar legislation. If the USA found it necessary at that stage to entrench their identity in this way, how much the more is it not valid for South Africa?

And now?

Let us look for a moment at the moral and ethical standards. He referred to the standpoint of the church. I now want to refer to the book Ras, Volk en Nasie en Volkereverhoudinge in die Lig van die Skrif.

But that is very old.

I do not want to wax theological now, but I just want to read a few things from this book—

These are decisions of the General Synod of the D.R. Church of 1974. To continue—

Then it goes on to say—

This is the policy of the NP.

Reference has also been made to certain newspaper editors and professors. I just want to read to the hon. member what Prof. Piet Oosthuizen of the Faculty of Law of the University of Pretoria said—

He went on to say—

Then I should also like to refer the hon. member to a very important scientific authority that argues for the retention of the Immorality Act. I am referring to the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into the Penal System of the Republic of South Africa. In paragraphs 2.109 and 2.110 on page 32 of the report (R.P. 78/1976) I read—

Their finding is as follows—

The commission referred to the historical background. One must take that into account. There is the 1927 Act of Tielman Roos. That Act was passed unanimously at the Second Reading without debate. UP Senators of that time even asked in the Other Place for the Act to be extended so as to include intercourse with Coloureds. However, the rules did not allow of an amendment of this type. In the ’thirties the public strongly insisted on the termination of mixed marriages between White and non-White. General Jack Pienaar, subsequently Administrator of the Transvaal, even introduced a Bill in the House of Assembly on this matter. In 1939 Dr. Malan, as Leader of the Opposition, introduced a petition in the House of Assembly signed by no less a person than Father Kestell. That petition was signed by 230 020 people—the largest number of signatories to a petition ever introduced here in the history of Parliament—and that petition called for legislation against mixed marriages, miscegenation, etc. Does that hon. member want to ignore history completely? Then, under UP government— bear this in mind—a commission was appointed consisting of Advocate C. W. de Villiers, K.C., Attorney-General of the Transvaal; Advocate C. P. Brink of Bloemfontein, subsequently Judge of Appeal; Prof. R. W. Wilcocks, Rector of the University of Stellenbosch; Mrs. Mabel Malherbe, UP MP of Pretoria; and Mrs. Nellie Spillhaus, MPC from Cape Town. It is no good saying at this stage that we are living in changed circumstances. There are, after all, certain norms and rules which remain the same forever and which constitute an anchor for arranging one’s way of life. Why should this be adrift on the ocean just like the PFP? We have certain principles to which we cling. I should like to quote a few of this commission’s recommendations. In paragraph 138, mention is made of arguments which are just as sound today as they were at that time.

What commission was that?

These arguments are to be found in paragraph 138 of the report of the commission of 1939. It reads—

Is this argument not as valid today as it was yesterday and the day before? Surely it is a sound argument.

Their acts must first be brought to light.

The following is said in paragraph 84 of the report—

However, the commission went on to say—

Is this not still the same today? I ask this of the hon. member for Rondebosch and of the hon. member for Bryanston: Is it not still the same today?

Just ask the people around you.

Surely this is a basically sound statement to make, especially in the society in which we are living today. Strangely enough, in 1939, the Smuts Government—and this is something which we shall always hold against them— moved away in their rancour and bitterness from the traditional policy of the NP as practised at that time, whereas they had unanimously agreed with the traditional policy of separate development all those years, and they went to wage the struggle on the battlefields abroad in order to cast suspicion on us and this legislation, as they are still in fact doing today.

It is your own members who are doing so.

For that reason I move the following amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Rondebosch—

Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the speech of the hon. member for Brakpan and I noted the amendment which he has moved. I also noted that the hon. member was very careful not to suggest that the matter be left to a free vote in this House. This was of course the obvious thing that he should have suggested in view of the numerous statements that have been made during the recess and during the election campaign that there is no necessity for retaining the Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act on our Statute Book. However, no such suggestion has come from the hon. member. I wondered why not? Have hon. members who have stressed their dissatisfaction with the retention of these laws, been told to keep quiet or have they sunk without trace in the caucus already? What has happened? We have had so many pronouncements over the last six months about these Acts that one would have thought that the NP, realizing that its own ranks are split from top to bottom on this issue, would at least have had the courage to allow hon. members to declare themselves in public on the floor of Parliament. No such thing came about, however. We had a stultifying amendment, which, in effect, simply leaves matters exactly where they were. In other words the amendment is aimed at the retention, without any amendment whatsoever, of two laws which I believe have brought more notoriety and more unwelcome publicity on South African than practically any other law on the Statute Book.

These great patriots who are so concerned about South Africa’s image in the outside world and who castigate us on this side of the House because we criticize Nationalist actions and Nationalist Bills, are quite prepared to leave on the Statute Book, untouched by human hands—I suppose one can call them human hands—laws which have brought tremendous notoriety and unfavourable publicity to South Africa in the outside world. I also want to tell the hon. member for Brakpan that when the hon. member for Rondebosch introduces a motion—a motion which I am very happy indeed to be able to support—to repeal the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and to repeal section 16 of the Immorality Act, he is not suggesting that we make miscegenation compulsory in South Africa. That is not the basis of the motion that the hon. member has introduced to the House this afternoon.

That is his next step.

Well, we shall have to wait and see. I doubt very much if that is what he means. Judging from the speech which the hon. member for Brakpan made this afternoon, one would think that that was indeed the intention behind the motion of the hon. member for Rondebosch. That, of course, is nonsense. The hon. member also referred to this as an “opportunistic motion by an opportunistic member of an opportunistic party”. The hon. member said we talk about retaining and honouring the language, culture and religion of the different people of South Africa. There is, however, nothing to stop the people of South Africa from honouring their language, culture and their religion.

How are you going to protect their culture?

It is unnecessary, because if culture needs protection, it is going to disappear anyway. A culture which is worth retaining maintains itself and does not need laws to retain it. A religion which is worth retaining—I, as a member of the Jewish race and religion should know—does not need the laws of the country to maintain its identity and its preservation. It continues over the centuries irrespective of such laws. People respect their own religion, language and culture and they do not need laws to protect them. This must be the only country in the world that has a law on its Statute Book to protect the racial identity—that is what it is for—of its people. I would like the hon. member for Brakpan or any other member on that side of the House, including the hon. the Minister, to tell me what other country has found it necessary to place laws like this on the Statute Book in order to protect the religion, language and culture of its people. I do not believe there is such a country.

Section 16 of the Immorality Act has little to do with immorality per se.

Thank heavens you are off section 6 at least!

I am sure the hon. the Minister is glad that I am off section 6 of the Terrorism Act at least. I want to tell him that I am glad I am off section 6 as well. I wish we did not have a section 6, then I would never have to return to it. Section 16 of the Immorality Act has little to do with immorality per se. It deals with sexual relations across the colour line, that is all. It declares illegal …

That is a technical argument. [Interjections.]

The hon. member is quite right; it is a technical argument. If it had to do with immorality per se it would make no mention of sexual relations across the colour line. It would have retained adultery, for instance, as a crime in South Africa. Is the hon. member against adultery? The hon. member nods his head, but I want him to say “yes” in a loud voice …

Yes, I am; are you?

Yes, of course! Absolutely. [Interjections.] The hon. member will agree with me that there is no law against adultery in South Africa, and it is just as well, maybe, because many thousands of citizens would be sitting in gaol as guests of the hon. the Minister. There was a law against adultery in South Africa, but to the best of my knowledge—I have looked this up—the last adultery trial in South Africa was in 1914.

The hon. the Minister will no doubt remember this from his law books. It was the trial of Green v. Fitzgerald. That was the last adultery trial in South Africa. There has been no criminal prosecution for adultery since then. The law has been abrogated by disuse and as the learned judge said at the time—

That is really what we are asking for here. We are asking for the repeal of section 16 of the Immorality Act—which as I say does not deal with immorality per se at all, but with sexual relations across the colour line—and we are asking that this simply be allowed to be dealt with by virtue of normal rules of morality and religion. It is my contention that if this law were removed we would not find that tomorrow—we did not find it in South West Africa, as the hon. member for Rondebosch said—there would be a stampede, shall we say, across the colour line for sexual reasons. I think it is unlikely that we would find it.

Why are you worried about it then?

It is the hon. member who is worried about it. I want this law to disappear. The only reason why I worry about it is because it is a law which has brought South Africa into disrepute all over the world. It is really a disgusting law and I shall tell the hon. member why I think so. It is a law which does not even make allowance for long standing liaison between people. It is a law which makes no allowance for people who have lived together for years as man and wife and who have had children. Only the other day there was a case of a man and a woman who had lived together for 27 years and who had five children, but there was no way they could get married because of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and they could be prosecuted, and indeed were prosecuted, under the Immorality Act.

Disgraceful!

It is disgraceful. The legislation makes no allowance for these long-standing relationships which have got nothing to do with lust per se.

The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, equally, does not make any allowance for people who are prepared to take all the social stigma that exists in this country about crossing the colour line, who are prepared to get married and if necessary to live in a Coloured group area. A White person realizes that by marrying a Black he would sacrifice his franchise in this House, which after all is the body which makes all the laws which govern our lives, and not the CRC, the Indian Council or the Legislative Assemblies of the homelands. Such people are prepared to live in group areas which by all standards have lower residential standards than White group areas, where education for their children is of a lower quality, and so on. There are people who are prepared to accept that, and yet they still may not by law get married.

I can see no justification whatsoever for interfering with the private lives of citizens in this way. I believe that there are areas where the State has no right whatsoever to interfere; it is no business of the State to interfere in personal relationships that do no harm to anybody else. That is the point I am making. These people do no harm to anyone else. What does harm is the existence of the law and the criminal penalties attached thereto. That, as well as the stigma and the notoriety which I am going to come to in some detail in a moment, is what does harm.

What do you say about prostitution?

There are laws against prostitution.

I know, but do you want them?

I am against prostitution. Prostitution is rank immorality where sex takes place for gain.

And you are against it.

Of course, I am obviously against it.

How does that gain affect you in any way?

Prostitution is an immoral practice, just as …

But that has nothing to do with you.

Of course it has. [Interjections.] Sex for monetary gain is in itself an immoral act. Surely, I do not have to explain that to the hon. the Minister. Selling sex is an immoral act, but sexlations across the colour line per se need not be an immoral act. They may be acts flowing from genuine relationships existing between human beings and they may be relationships where those human beings want to get married. Although illegal, there is nothing immoral about that. To set up prostitution on the same basis shows that the hon. the Minister has got know real understanding of the meaning of immorality. Many countries have laws against prostitution, but no other country has laws against sexual relations across the colour line. Does the hon. the Minister want to tell me that every other country in the world is wrong and that only South Africa is right? It is, however, considered the norm in South Africa. Three years ago, not having television, mixed sport or mixed schools were considered the norm in South Africa. I mean, we do change our ideas. Now, in 1978, one is hoping that perhaps South Africa has made another tottering little step forward in the direction taken by most other civilized Western nations of the world.

I want to deal again with the question of what this does to peoples lives. All of us who have read about all the cases which have been reported in the newspapers will remember the Excelsior case and what effect it had upon the lives of the people in that little town and how the world Press descended on little Excelsior to lap up all the salacious details.

What about Houghton?

We do not have that sort of thing happening in Houghton. We in Houghton are very, very careful! [Interjections.] These details were very kindly provided by this Government’s legislation, because it is only as a result of that legislation that all this happened. In the end the cases were dropped, because the women refused to testify, or whatever reason was given by the Attorney-General at the time, but not until enormous damage had been done to South Africa. Every time a case like this occurs, it hits the headlines, because it involves human drama, and more damage is done to South Africa. That is one reason why we think it is such a disgraceful Act to keep on the Statute Book.

However, the other and more important reason is the damage it does to people’s lives. Judge Schreiner, when he was sitting on one of these cases, said that “miscegenation has been elevated into a crime so atrocious as to make all other crimes relatively small in South Africa.” That is an extraordinary thing for a judge to have to say. Why did he say that? He said it because the results of this law are horrendous. It results in suicides, broken marriages, social ostracism and the stigma which is attached not only to being found guilty and convicted in terms of the Immorality Act, but even to just being prosecuted. Even if one is then subsequently found not guilty, the stigma attached to it is virtually the same. Last year The Argus published a list of some 16 suicides within a short period. The headlines in the newspapers were really disgusting. I quote some of these headlines—

One can go on reading out these horrific headlines ad nauseam.

They were murdered by these laws.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the number of these cases surely gives him some idea of what is going on in this country.

As the hon. the Minister knows the Act was extended in 1950 to include Whites and all Blacks. As the hon. the Minister will also know, the first Act was passed in 1927, but that applied only to White people and Africans; it did not apply to White people having sexual relations with Coloured or Indian people. In 1950 the Immorality Act was extended to include Whites having relations with any of the other Black groups in South Africa. Since that time, over 10 000 people have been convicted under the Immorality Act, and I may say that in the four years prior to 1976 alone, there were 886 convictions. I do not have the figures for 1977, but for the years 1973 to 1976, 886 people were actually convicted under these laws and there were 1 169 prosecutions in those four years. That was after the practice was changed in that an instruction was given after Excelsior that all charges had to be referred to the particular Attorney-General in whichever province it was that the alleged offence took place, before prosecution was instituted. So there was a considerable drop at that stage when the Attorneys-General in the various provinces vetted the various cases before the people were actually prosecuted. Yet there is still an enormous number of cases and they give rise to tremendous notoriety and South Africa’s name suffers very seriously as a result.

The Mixed Marriages Act has quite clearly got to be repealed if one suggests a repeal of section 16 of the Immorality Act. You clearly cannot suggest that what people cannot lawfully do within the sanction of marriage rites, they can be permitted to do outside of marriage, so clearly the repeal of the two must go together. In any case, we are dead against any law which prohibits people from marrying across the colour line. That is essentially a matter of individual choice. It makes no difference to the community. I understand fully the argument used by the hon. member for Rondebosch, that this is all part and parcel of separate development and the compulsory separation of the races, but since this is not the policy which we follow in these benches, we clearly are prepared to take the consequences of removing what is perhaps in Nationalist eyes one of the foundation stones of their policy.

Obviously!

Obviously, yes, like in any other normal country in the world. We are prepared to behave like any other normal country. Quite recently hon. members will have read about another case which hit the headlines in the USA. The headlines stated: “White Pretoria girl marries South African Indian in New York,” because they could not get married here, obviously. Again, maximum publicity was given across the front pages of newspapers in New York. The headlines stated: “They fled apartheid for love.” It is this sort of nonsense thing that brings South Africa into immediate disrepute, because these laws are insulting. That is why. People do not consider that these laws are protecting the identity or the culture of anybody. However, what they do consider them to be, is that they are insulting, discriminatory laws. That is why they hit the headlines and that is why they add to the disrepute of South Africa.

Finally, I say that it should not be necessary to have laws to preserve identity, culture, language or religion. That can be done voluntarily. There is nothing to stop people preserving those particular identities. As far as other arguments are concerned, I simply want to say that these laws in themselves are objectionable, and if they are objectionable, the manner in which they are implemented is even more objectionable. There is only one way in which these laws are implemented. The police have to implement them. They have to do the most unpleasant tasks, i believe the most humiliating tasks, and I do not think it is a burden which should be laid upon the police. They lend themselves to blackmail and they are laws which have no part whatever on the Statute Book of a modern, democratic country.

It gives me pleasure to support the motion of the hon. member for Rondebosch.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton has thought fit, after seven years, to speak in a debate of this nature again, with this difference that whereas in 1962 she moved an amendment Bill with the object of neutralizing section 16 of the Immorality Act, in 1971 she moved the repeal of both these pieces of legislation which are today under discussion. As far as today’s motion is concerned, she has only spoken in support of it. It is very obvious that she did not introduce today’s motion herself, as she had someone with the necessary knowledge to do it, namely the hon. member for Rondebosch. In fact, she referred to the hon. member for Rondebosch in 1971. At that time, too, she referred to a number of scholars, jurists and quasi-scholars. As it turned out, the then Minister of Justice made an analysis of the various scholars to whom the hon. member for Houghton had referred. He ultimately replied objectively and soberly to every argument which she had advanced. But it is interesting to note that he did not consider it necessary to reply to a single argument which the hon. member for Rondebosch had advanced when he was still a professor. The then Minister of Justice did in fact reply to proposals made by Prof. S. A. Strauss, someone who is no doubt still being quoted by the Opposition in support of their stand today. At the time, the Minister agreed that the hon. member for Houghton was correct in at least one respect, which was that alleged contraventions of the Immorality Act, in the same way as all other alleged offences,should first be referred to the Attorney-General concerned before prosecutions were instituted. The Minister agreed at the time that this could be done. That was even before there had been a debate on the matter. He did however take cognizance of public opinion on how this legislation could be implemented in such a manner that it would be least prejudicial to the process of law enforcement and in order to ensure that when a prosecution was instituted in terms of this legislation, the charges against alleged transgressors would be properly formulated.

I find it baffling that the hon. member for Houghton in particular did not refer to that debate and did not admit that since instructions in connection with the enforcement of this legislation were issued to Attorneys-General, considerable satisfaction has prevailed in connection with a difficult piece of legislation which drastically affects people’s lives. It is a fact that every common law impediment in connection with people’s conduct, as well as other laws, indeed encroaches on people’s lives. Each of them brings disaster when a statutory provision is contravened. Each of them also results in suffering and pain if the transgressor has a family that is affected. We quote as a simple example a common law offence such as theft. Then there is also illicit diamond buying, also a statutory offence. Legislation concerning each of these offences drastically affects the life of every individual.

We are dealing here with legislation which the hon. member for Houghton decided to use as a point of attack. Her argument was that this legislation has a tremendously detrimental effect on the lives of people. But it has already been pointed out that when a law is on the Statute Book, it has certain consequences which must simply be accepted. In 1971 the then Minister of Justice said in the House—and I can remember that there was a deathly silence in the House when he said it—that since it was evidently White men only who transgressed in this respect, the only solution was to stay away from a woman of another colour. The solution is as simple as that.

Just as she did then, the hon. member for Houghton lashed out today at the conduct of the Police in this connection. Just as we objected then, we must today again object seriously to the hon. members charge against the Police in connection with their conduct. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members have from time to time been challenged to formulate specific charges against the Police as far as this matter is concerned. So far, however, they have been unable to do so. There was talk of police traps, etc., and the then Minister of Justice gave an assurance in this connection. That assurance still stands. As regards the overall enforcement of these measures by our Police and the referring of cases to the Attorney-General, I should like to say to the hon. member for Houghton that she is by no means doing us a favour today by implicating our penal system and the enforcement thereof. The banner headlines about the couple who fled to New York, are nothing in comparison with these suggestions by the hon. member which are being bruited abroad. The two are not comparable. What she has done, is far more serious to the country.

In 1962 the hon. member proposed a motion, not to abolish the Mixed Marriages Act, but only to repeal section 16 of the Immorality Act. At the time her motion had no bearing on the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. The hon. Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Justice, pointed out to her that she was actually placing a premium on a lecherous society in wanting to do away with the provisions pertaining to immorality but not with the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act.

That is not true.

If one removes the provisions pertaining to immorality but retains the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the implication is that one is indeed trying to condone immorality. The hon. member for Houghton learned her lesson. She came back in 1971 and asked for the repeal of both laws. We thought then that she had learned her lesson, but today she tells us again that she wants to assure us that there will be no “stampede across the colour line.” Whose opinion is she conveying in this connection? She professes to have respect for our courts. Against her opinion we must now weigh the opinion of the Commission of Inquiry into the Penal System of the RSA which was appointed in 1974. What do they say about this measure? I quote from paragraph 2.110—

I do not know whether the view of the hon. judge was supported by evidence. That was the case in respect of all other matters in the report, and I therefore do not know why it would not also have applied in this case. The judge went on to state—

It has sounded like a refrain throughout the speeches by the hon. members for Houghton and Rondebosch that they are actually opposed to immorality. They do not approve of it. Now we see that the Commission, too, found that that possibility existed. Nevertheless the hon. member for Houghton professes to be interpreting public opinion and that she has all the knowledge and evidence to prove the contrary. She did not refer to this report. The hon. member for Brakpan has argued very strongly that circumstances have indeed not changed, but she did not reply to him on that point. Sir, whom must we now believe? Those hon. members have not placed any testimony or arguments whatsoever before us to refute the findings of this Commission. Sir, when we as the legislature discuss a matter of common interest, we must not only take note of what is said by an Opposition consisting of 17 members. We must also take note of what has been said by a commission appointed by this Government and of what has happened in the meantime to prove the contrary. Since I have asked the hon. member whom they represent, I also wish to ask her whether she admits that they are liberalists. Surely they are liberalists. There is no doubt about that. They do not even deny it.

Just like Hendrik Schoeman. [Interjections.]

In 1962 the hon. the Prime Minister, then Minister of Justice, said the hon. member for Houghton and he adhered to two different philosophies. He said hers was that of the liberal. Of course if one is liberal in one respect, one is also liberal in all other respects. One could therefore expect her to adopt this standpoint. I was interested to know whether it was necessarily a responsible standpoint and also to know whom they represent. On the question of whom they represent, I had difficulty however, because they represent a few thousand voters. If they think that they speak on behalf of the Black and Brown people generally, then I want to tell them that they are living in a dream world. As recently as 20 January 1978, Mr. Thula of the Inkatha movement said—

They are past and forgotten, and therefore they do not speak on behalf of those people! Discussions on matters affecting Black and Brown people will therefore take place with their leaders. It is as simple as that!

I also asked myself what the view of a real liberal was when it came to freedom to do the right thing and to do whatever one felt like doing. I want to refer here to what the hon. member for Houghton said, and I quote—

I also examined what a well-known liberal, Mr. John Stuart Mill, had to say about what was fundamental in the relationship between the individual and the State with reference to free will and desire in connection with sexual intercourse. I think the answer lies in the analysis of his viewpoint in his work “On Liberty”, and I quote—

That also applies to those who have been found guilty, and also, unfortunately, to their families. I quote again—

He goes further—

If that, then, is the fundamental approach of the liberal, surely we have common ground with the liberal. In that case those members do not even represent the liberal school of thought. They cannot even rely on the support of a liberal, clear-thinking person such as Mill for their standpoint that a person can have sexual intercourse at his own sweet will regardless of the consequences—and on that point they have not answered the hon. member for Brakpan—which the children born of such a relationship have to bear, whether the relationship be transient or of long duration. It is for the most part, however, a short-lived relationship. They have not replied to that. The hon. member for Rondebosch, a sociologist, is not here now to hand out advice on this cardinal argument from this side of the House that our society is so structured that we can accommodate the descendants of specific marriage partners of the same group and that we can indeed offer them all the necessary opportunities so that as individuals within that group they can live their lives to the full. Where would the descendants otherwise be accommodated?

I want to postulate this scientific approach as an answer to the initially scientific approach of the hon. member for Rondebosch: I could also find no foundation whatsoever in scientific liberalism for their standpoint that there should be no interference by the State in the private individual’s arbitrary desire when it comes to sexual intercourse.

I want to return to another aspect which the hon. member for Rondebosch and also the hon. member for Houghton very definitely touched upon. They alleged that section 16 has no place in the Immorality Act. Their standpoint is that this section is of a different kind. Is it really so? I have read the Immorality Act carefully and analysed the sections one by one. In the first place I found that immorality was defined as “carnal intercourse otherwise than between husband and wife”. It is a concept which is used in most of the sections, in such a manner that it is very clear to me that it is especially the woman who is being protected. Section 9 makes it a punishable offence for a parent or guardian to procure the defilement of a child or ward. Section 10 deals with procuration. Any person who procures a female to commit immorality is guilty of an offence. A person who conspires to defile a woman, is punishable in terms of section 11. The detention of a woman for immoral purposes is punishable in terms of section 12. The abduction of a woman is punishable in terms of section 13. Section 14 deals with our boys and girls, once again the weaker individuals in our society. Under the next article the female idiot or imbecile in our society is protected.

Then we come to section 16. It is interesting to note that in the same breath we can go on to section 17, because it also deals with a person who permits the use of his premises for the defilement of a woman. In other words, the whole spirit of the legislation is to protect the weaker individuals in society. The hon. members opposite did not deal with that in any way. In this section there is also reference to the non-White male person. He, too, is being protected. What is he being protected against? He is being protected against solicitation, and is that not a form of prostitution? The hon. members have said they are opposed to prostitution, but what is solicitation if it is not prostitution? In other words, within the context of this Act, section 16 has been promulgated in the first place, to recognize and maintain the structure of our society, and secondly, to protect the weaker individuals in the circumstances set out in the section.

Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. members on the other side. It is interesting to note that the two speakers on the other side so far have both been legal men. I think I am correct in saying that. I think I am also correct in saying that the speakers yet to come will also be legal men—not clergymen, but legal men. I sympathize with them very much indeed because they have the unenviable task of trying to defend an indefensible Act; in fact, two indefensible Acts.

The hon. member for Brakpan used some extraordinary arguments. When talking of Japan, he said that basically the Japanese had wished to keep their own ethnic identity. Basically this is what he was saying. We are not suggesting for a moment that they should not do so, but have they passed a law preventing the odd person from marrying across the colour line where that person wished to do so? Of course they have not!

Secondly, he refers to the Erika Theron Commission and states that the Erika Theron Commission found that 73% of the Coloureds are proud of their identity. How marvellous! What on earth has this to do with the motion before the House today? Absolutely nothing! We are not trying to remove legislation that is going to affect a vast number of people in this country. We are trying to remove only legislation that will prevent a few people from doing what they wish to do. Does this House realize that despite the fact that there is no Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act in America, less than 1% of the American population marry across the colour line. So we have this particular Act to prevent, in all probability, less than 1% of the population from marrying across the colour line. This is indeed the sledgehammer and peanut analogy.

Whilst obviously supporting the motion by the hon. member for Rondebosch, I do nevertheless wish to take issue with him about what he said when he introduced the motion. He started very well and very carefully. There was no emotional attack. He simply presented a case, and a very good case, for the repeal of these Acts. However, he then went on to tell the hon. members on the other side why they should not. Judging from the level of arguments from the other side, I do not think that they would have thought of this for themselves. I therefore believe that every time the hon. member for Brakpan opened his mouth, he actually put his foot into it.

Both feet.

I want to warn the hon. member for Brakpan that the price of dentures has recently gone up sharply and that he therefore needs to be careful!

Let us look at the two Acts, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act. Let us hang them on the scales of justice by which they should be judged. I believe that all members of this House should judge for themselves on which side the scale tips. We must do this because it is the contention of the hon. member for Houghton—and I fully agree with her—that the prime effect of these Acts is harmful to South Africa. They are harmful to the country which, I am sure, hon. members and I love. This is what I find unforgivable. I have already said that very few people in this country are affected by these particular Acts. However, South Africa as a whole is affected by all the adverse publicity. Hon. members on the other side are quick to pounce on members in the Opposition benches and say that they are spreading distortion through the world Press. Here is the opportunity for those hon. members to perhaps cover up for the unfortunate remarks made in connection with the Biko affair.

You are being childish! You are being absolutely childish!

They can come forward and repeal laws which are causing damage to this country, and I do not believe there can be any doubt at all in the minds of anybody in this House that these laws are, in fact, damaging South Africa. One sees reports to this effect in the overseas Press day after day and year after year, and these reports are not spread by the Opposition. They are spread throughout the world because the laws are basically bad laws. How can one justify these laws on moral principles and how, furthermore, can one justify them on Christian principles? I have referred to the fact that in the Opposition benches there is not one clergyman, as far as I can understand, who will take part in this debate. I see the hon. member for Port Natal is unfortunately not in his bench, but I wonder how he squares it with his conscience that he, as a minister of religion, is forced, by the party he supports, to refuse to join in holy matrimony two Christian people who have no other bar to their marriage except this evil law. How does a Christian square that with his conscience? I personally find that I cannot.

You are presumptuous.

I notice that another hon. cleric is interjecting.

You had better stay out of the Church.

I have no intention of going into the Church as a minister of religion. I go to church often, but not as a minister. I believe that the Government is being given an opportunity today to take a positive step in the interests of South Africa. I think I have demonstrated clearly that the scale of justice I was referring to must come down heavily on the side of harm to South Africa since the overseas Press will, as long as we have this Act, constantly refer to cases where people have been caused hardship by these provisions. What happens is that two people who are probably in love, and wish to get married, are prevented from marrying, and then on top of that the provisions of the Immorality Act come into play so they are even denied the normal expression of their love. We are, in fact, creating a situation where people have to be basically against the law because of a natural desire to spend time in each other’s company.

Another argument I have, in regard to the motion moved by the Official Opposition, relates to the consequences of the Act. If we are to repeal the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, and if we are to repeal the Immorality Act, we shall have a situation where, very possibly, approximately 1% of our population will wish to marry across the colour line. This is where the Official Opposition left the matter. I believe that they should have taken it to its next logical step. As the law now stands, if these people are allowed to get married, the only place in which they can live is in an international hotel, and that would obviously represent a tremendous strain on their exchequer. Therefore, if we are to repeal these Acts, we must go one step further and urge the Government to then make it possible for these people to live together in an area where they can be together with other people of both race groups from which they come.

Where will that area be?

This can very easily be done. I am not suggesting what hon. members to my right might perhaps suggest and I am referring to my right physically and not metaphorically. I only wish to suggest that the Government should create open residential areas. I am not suggesting that all residential areas must immediately be integrated and declared open. This, I am sure, will not be the correct solution. I see no reason, however, why new open areas should not be established immediately, areas in which any person can live, whether he is Black, Coloured, Indian or White. It would be left to their individual choice. We do not want to force anybody to live in that area, because the policy of our party is to use force as little as possible. We do not want forced segregation, but neither do we want forced integration. Therefore we suggest that there should be open residential areas established, areas in which it would be possible for people who have married across the colour line to live in peace and harmony with each other. These would be areas in which Coloureds could live, in which perhaps Blacks could escape from areas in which they are currently forced to live. It must be borne in mind that a Black man, no matter what his income is, is forced to live in an area where inevitably he is looked down upon as a man of wealth. He has to lock his car in his garage at night or otherwise it is stripped by morning, and he also has to lock up all his possessions.

Why not also give these people the chance to move into an area where they can live a decent, productive and reasonable life.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I respect your decision. I was, however, actually speaking in support of an amendment to the motion before the House, an amendment I should like to move as follows—

Mr. Speaker, during the course of his speech the hon. member for East London North referred rather frequently to Christians. He referred scornfully to the fact that only lawyers, and not theologians, were participating in the debate. For the record I just want to point out to him that there are lawyers on this side of the House who are also Christians. [Interjections.] In the second place, it is a good thing that we also had a financier participating in the debate. I sincerely hope the hon. member for East London North has no financial interest in this motion. In the third place I have information—which I should like to verify—that the hon. member sought PFP nomination before the election but was unsuccessful and was then accommodated in the NRP. We therefore understand full well why he felt himself entirely at liberty to support this motion. [Interjections.]

That is totally untrue!

I shall return to the hon. member’s amendment in the course of my speech.

They find themselves committing unlawful political intercourse!

Mr. Speaker, I shall now turn from political immorality to real immorality. Simply for the sake of the record I should like to rectify two matters with reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Rondebosch. He said that the result of the voting on the Erika Theron Commission’s recommendation on mixed marriages and immorality was twelve to four. One can make all kinds of interesting calculations if one adds up figures and bears amendments in mind. However, I just want to point out that the result of the voting on the actual motion before the Erika Theron Commission, which was similar to the motion at present before this House, was eight to seven. One must also bear in mind that it was a multi-national commission.

In the second place the hon. member saw fit to quote the motivation for this recommendation from the report as follows (page 481)—

However, the hon. member did not quote the very first sentence of the same paragraph. It reads—

That is very important.

Before I refer to the hon. member’s speech again, I want to touch upon a few matters arising from the remarks made by the hon. member for Houghton. She saw fit to create the impression that a tremendous number of prosecutions in terms of this legislation have occurred in South Africa and that it has done South Africa’s image tremendous harm. The latest available figures are those for 1976.

In that year 351 prosecutions were instituted in terms of this Act. There are 35 600 police officers in this country and that means that every 100 police officers instituted only one prosecution during a period of 12 months. If one takes into consideration that two people are involved in an immorality case, it actually means that during a period of 12 months every 200 police officers came across only one case of immorality which resulted in a prosecution. From 1971 to 1976 there was a very large decrease in the number of prosecutions, viz. from 1 102 to 351. Is this not indeed a demonstration of the effectiveness of this particular Act? In addition, if one bears in mind that only 351 people out of a total of 25 million were prosecuted, one realizes how this legislation has eliminated endless grief, adjustment problems and assimilation problems. In this regard there is another interesting aspect to which I want to refer. If one takes into consideration that in south Africa approximately 2 million crimes and statutory violations occur every year, one finds that these 351 prosecutions represent only 0,00014% of the total—and the number of prosecutions instituted in terms of this law do not necessarily represent the number of convictions.

This motion has a two-fold purpose. In the first place it is an attempt to reduce the crime rate by 0,00014% and secondly—I shall refer to this again—it is in fact chiefly aimed at substituting Prog policy for Government policy.

I think it was an exceptionally bad choice on their part to introduce such a motion at this particularly delicate juncture. Hon. members of that Opposition party know full well what the Government’s policy in regard to these statutory provisions is. They know full well that this particular legislation forms an integral part of NP policy. It is a policy which has time and again been repeatedly confirmed, and which was once again confirmed, two months ago, by 70% of the electorate of South Africa. They also know that South Africa’s foreign enemies are wide awake, waiting and looking for even the most trivial event which they can hurl at South Africa’s head. They know that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is at this critical moment engaged in the most delicate of negotiations abroad in connection with the survival of South West Africa, and therefore of South Africa as well. It is a make or break conference. South Africa finds herself under tremendous pressure. If any kind of statement is made here, if anything is strangely worded or misreported by a foreign journalist, it can be thrown back in our faces or used against us. Is this motion which has now been introduced the work of a responsible Opposition party which has any interest at all in the integrity of South Africa? And they are doing this in spite of the fact that the Government, only last year, made phenomenal proposals for a new constitutional dispensation for non-Whites in South Africa. Does the hon. member for Rondebosch—who is a sociologist—not accept that miscegenation is an evil which has not succeeded anywhere in the world. Does the hon. Opposition not accept that racial mixing results in greater tragedy and misery than the retention of these laws and statutory prosecutions in terms of such laws?

I now want to associate myself with a good NP argument which the hon. member for Rondebosch used. He began his argument by saying that the repeal of this legislation went much further than might appear at first glance. He submitted that it affected the entire policy of separate, parallel, multinational development to its very foundations, and that it would have far-reaching consequences. That is correct. By repealing the legislation referred to in the motion on the Order Paper, the principle of the preservation of racial purity is done away with. In other words, one is getting rid of statutory provisions which have existed in this country since 1678 with a view to coping with the problems of racial mixing. In addition it is also a fact that, if one gets rid of the principle of race purity, it means that miscegenation is in fact being encouraged. If we allow miscegenation to occur, it means that the Population Registration Act must inevitably be repealed as well. If mixed marriages are allowed and if immorality is freely allowed, surely it will no longer be possible for one to determine a person’s colour. Once that happens, surely everyone will simply become integrated. Then we will have the open society which is being advocated by the Official Opposition.

Now, it is significant that nowhere in the report of the Erika Theron Commission is it being requested that the present system of race classification, as it is being applied in South Africa, should be done away with. That is not stated in the report at all. The hon. member for East London North saw fit to say that the 72,2% who are proud to call themselves Coloureds make it impossible for him to understand how this motion can appear on the Order Paper. Do hon. members not realize that the system of race classification inevitably disappears if the legislation referred to in the motion is repealed? Does the hon. member for Rondebosch not realize that one then has a mixed society and that there can no longer be a Coloured population group, the members of which can be proud of their own identity? If we get rid of race classification, we automatically get rid of the Group Areas Act because it then becomes impossible to classify people and to place them in group area categories. It is also significant to note that the report of the Erika Theron Commission does not refer anywhere to the possible repeal of the Group Areas Act. On the contrary. The report mentions that the existing residential and life pattern of allocated residential group areas, proprietary rights and community services is so well-established that it cannot be disturbed.

If we therefore do away with group areas we are doing away with all the other things as well. Then we are also getting rid of the NP’s policy of multi-nationalism and substituting for it the PFP’s policy of multi-racialism. Then it means that more than 70% of the voters who, two months ago, decided on these principles, were wrong, and that the PFP was correct. Then we simply find ourselves coming back to their system of an open society and of unqualified socio-political integration, back to their system of multiracialism with almost immediate Black majority rule. Can we be so foolish now, by supporting this ostensibly innocent motion, as to throw overboard the NP’s policy for which it has the mandate of the electorate of South Africa and return to the policy of the PFP? What do those hon. members really think of the intelligence of hon. members on this side of the House?

What about South West Africa? [Interjections.]

The motion of the hon. member for Rondebosch is an ill-considered one. It is a motion typical of armchair politicians, typical of people who either do not perceive the consequences or who do perceive the consequences but who know that they will never be saddled with the task of dealing with them.

The hon. member for Houghton saw fit to state here that the legislation under discussion was an invasion of the private life of the individual. Of course that depends from what point of view it is seen. The most important question is who in fact has the right to decide on morality. Is it the individual who has that right or is it the community that has the right to decide on morality? Is it the right of the individual to decide whether he wishes to marry two or three women, or is it the right of the community to take that decision? I want to make it very clear to the hon. member for Houghton that when the interests of the community are placed in jeopardy, the community has to take a decision, and when the community has to take a decision such a decision must be laid down in legislation because it is the will of the community. Then the individual has to subject himself to the decision of the community. That is orderly coexistence, and it cannot be achieved in any other way. The community decides whether or not a situation is acceptable. In this case it is society which has to decide on immorality. The decision of the community is converted into legislation, and legislation effects the balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community as such. It makes no difference how the situation is rationalized, the essential question, time and again, remains whether more problems are created by a specific piece of legislation, or eliminated by it. Time and again we return to the same essential question.

The essential fact remains that because South Africa, more than any other country in the world, represents a microcosm of the world’s ethnic problems, it obviously has to devote more attention to ethnicity when it draws up its socio-political programme. That is of the utmost importance. Every time the question is this: What is the best for South Africa? Every time the question is how legislation can be geared in order to prevent friction and in what way the multi-national situation in South Africa can best be dealt with in order to preserve peace and tranquility.

The hon. member for Houghton maintains that she cannot understand why culture and similar characteristics of the population group has to be perpetuated by means of legislation. The hon. member does not realize that South Africa is unique in the history of the world. South Africa is unique in the sense that there is no other country in the world in which there is such a heterogeneous set-up, and which is cohabited by so many different ethnic groups. In South Africa there are more than 2 000 faiths and more than 12 primary language groups. Taking all these factors into consideration it is particularly essential to pay attention to ethnic differences in South Africa when legislation is introduced with a view to ensuring peace.

I want to make it very clear that peace cannot be created by the abolition of an immorality law. Peace can only be created by way of the establishment of a material political say in which each national group can realize itself. With these few words I therefore wish to express my strongest disapprobation of the motion on the Order Paper and I want to express my support for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brakpan.

Mr. Speaker, I had the hope that there would be something of substance for me to reply to, seeing that I am the final speaker on this side of the House. Unfortunately I have seen the Government benches in almost total disarray. I am not surprised at that because they cannot really speak with conviction and they cannot really speak with the support of their party and of the members who sit in those benches. If ever there was an aspect of South African life which has brought about a great deal of tension and division within the NP ranks, it is this one. This has been made abundantly clear as we have listened to the debate so far.

However, I should like to reply to some of the specific items. The hon. member for Durbanville suggested that the hon. member for Rondebosch had given the House the wrong information as far as the voting was concerned in the Erica Theron Commission. I just want to correct him and point out that, in the first place, it is true that for the scrapping of these two particular Acts the vote was eight against seven in favour. [Interjections.] Then, in the minority report a further four members voted in favour of the repealing of this legislation coming under urgent and serious consideration. And that is the point. Twelve as against seven are unhappy with the present situation. That is exactly as it stands. The hon. member for Durbanville made great play in suggesting that because these particular Acts affect so few people, we should not make such a fuss about them. My question to him is: Why not scrap the legislation if it affects so few people? Why do we have these malicious Acts on our Statute Book if only so few people are directly affected?

Then, Sir, the hon. member argues that you must maintain racial purity, no matter the cost. I want to suggest to him that you cannot at once pledge to the world that you are going to move away from discrimination on the basis of race and colour and at the same time commit yourself to this kind of concept of racial purity. It simply will not work. Time and time again we have suggested that hon. members should reply as to what is taking place right now or has taken place very recently in South West Africa, where the NP was involved. We have not had a reply to that and I put it quite pertinently to the hon. the Minister. I hope that he, unlike his colleagues, will at least have the courage to respond to this. It is true that one can say, “We are in South Africa; they are in South West Africa.” There was, however, one Nationalist Party, and as the hon. member for Rondebosch reminded us, a former Cabinet Minister, who sat just over there on the other side of the House, was one of those who said: “If this must go in order to bring peace to that country, then it must go.” I say in the same terms that these laws must go if we are going to move along the road of peace in South Africa as well.

There is nothing to prevent you from going to South West Africa.

The hon. member for Brakpan, while he normally speaks somewhat wildly, very often makes a significant contribution to a debate in this House. I concede that. [Interjections.]

When?

There have been times. We must be fair. This time, however, it was total disaster. First of all he talks about opportunism. If ever we saw an example of opportunism, it was during the last election when many hon. members on that side of the House made some very strange noises indeed regarding these two Acts. But where are they now? Why have they not taken part in the debate? Where is the hon. the Minister of Agriculture? On his farm? Where is the hon. the Minister of National Education and of Sport and Recreation? [Interjections.] He is not here. As for that hon. member for Pretoria Central, he must keep quiet now, because he had a chance to speak, but he did not stand up and say that he was against us and that he supported the amendment. [Interjections.]

I am against the motion; you need have no doubts about that.

There are others in this House, but I cannot refer to them, because they have not yet made their maiden speeches.

I wonder who that is?

I cannot remember their names either, but they are here. We would welcome the opportunity to listen to them in the future.

Have you not got anything to say?

Yes, I have a great deal to say. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West said that when my colleague, the hon. member for Houghton, raised this matter in debate in 1971 and in 1962, she only talked about the Immorality Act and not about the Mixed Marriages Act. I want to refer him and this House to Hansard, Vol. 32, col. 1788 of 26 February 1971.

It was 1962.

The hon. member must try to be calm. In that debate in 1971 the hon. member for Houghton said—

If hon. members want the direct quote for the reference, it may be found in Hansard, col. 1538 of 23 February 1962. I hope that hon. member will now go and read that Hansard because it will do him the world of good to read any speech made by the hon. member for Houghton.

The hon. Member for Bloemfontein West asked whom we represent. It is a good question. I want to tell him. I wrote it down as he was speaking. He must listen very carefully because this is important. First of all, we obviously speak for the thousands of voters who put us in this place. [Interjections.] Secondly, and this is an assumption, we speak also for the thousands who have suffered and the thousands of Coloureds, Blacks and Indians who are insulted by this legislation. [Interjections.] They cannot speak in this place because of this Government’s attitude and policies. We are also speaking for, and represent some people on those benches who do not have the courage… [Interjections.] We are speaking for them because they will not speak for themselves. [Interjections.]

The final thing that that hon. member said, because he said nothing else, was that the real reason for this legislation was because it must protect the weak. Whom is he talking about? Hon. colleagues on the other side? Who are all these weak people? I am quite happy for this legislation to be repealed. Are you? No, you are not. [Interjections.] It is because he is so weak, Mr. Speaker. All right, we accept that there are some weak people in South Africa and that they must be defended. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for East London North quite rightly asked why we have had no, not Christians, but ex-dominees participating in this debate. We have been able to put someone in. Why can they not do so? The attitude of my particular church is well known. It has called for the repeal of these Acts over many years, because it serves people who are Black, Coloured, Indian and White, and knows the hardship that they suffer. I want to quote, therefore, not from my church, and not even from the English-speaking churches in South Africa, who have made their own attitudes very clear on this matter, but from the Dutch Reformed church. I quote now from a document from the General Synod, entitled “Human relations and the South African scene in the highlight of Scripture.” [Interjections.] If the hon. member does not like me quoting his own church—and I am surprised that hon. members opposite have not seen fit to quote the church—then does he mind if I quote the Scripture?

Did you not hear my speech?

It was so bad, it was very difficult to understand. If he does not want me to refer to his church, may I refer to the Bible? Is that all right? Or is that offensive to him?

You are ridiculous.

Amongst other things, the Bible makes it clear that “those whom God has joined together, let no man put asunder”. I am waiting for the response. What do they say to that? Are we above the Bible?

No, but we have respect for the Bible.

I see; so we have respect for the Bible. Nowhere in Scripture does the Bible speak against mixed marriages on the grounds of race; nowhere.

Is it a political handbook?

No, exactly! But then do not claim support from the Bible. If you have respect for the Bible, then the State must observe the boundaries that the Bible itself lays down between Church and State. The hon. Minister and I have had many rows across the floor of this House about the role of the Church and the State, and he has gone on record as having said many things about many churches and church members and certain church people, including myself. Now I ask that hon. Minister to take the Bible and the teachings of the Church seriously. I want to refer very specifically to a certain declaration by a Calvinist group based in Potchefstroom. This was in November 1977, so it is very recent. One of the things which that group of people of very serious and committed Christians said to this Government and to the peoples of this country was the following—

That is what I am asking that hon. Minister to do as far as these Acts are concerned. I am much more concerned with the Mixed Marriages Act than I am with the other aspects of this motion. This declaration went on to say—

That point was made earlier in the debate, but there have been no replies to that whatsoever. I quote further from this declaration—

That is central to our own argument, and certainly to my own commitment.

May I ask you a question?

No, I have very little time and I am trying to sum up this debate. We have had no answers at all, and therefore I am not prepared to answer any questions.

You can have a minute of our time; be our guest!

I shall take the question in a moment. This declaration went on to say this—

Is the hon. the Minister prepared to do that?

Could you repeat that?

Yes, I shall, because I think it is important. I quote—

That is what they ask the Government to do.

You heard the amendment which was moved to the motion; we are not prepared to do away with the Immorality Act.

Not even to try to take away the differentiation? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that if you are going to have an Immorality Act—and it may be that there are some people who wish to have it—you cannot base it purely on interracial incidents. Immorality is immorality. All I am asking is whether the hon. the Minister is prepared at least to alter the Act in such a way that it reflects this, rather than that it should be based purely on racial terms.

So what do you want to do? Do you want to make adultery …

Well, what do you want to do? I am asking whether you are prepared to change this.

What are you asking me for?

I am asking you to be consistent, that is all.

Now you want to change it.

In terms of our motion we want to scrap it entirely …

You said “change it”. You did not say “scrap it”.

I am saying that if you are not prepared to scrap it, it should be changed …

Well, let us hear how you want to change it.

Give me a chance and I shall tell you. Lean back a bit. Mr. Speaker, I am asking the hon. the Minister whether, if he is not prepared to scrap it, which is what we want and what we are asking for in this motion, he will be prepared so to alter that Act that immorality is a criminal offence for all.

How do you alter that?

You are the Minister of Justice; at least you should know how to do that.

You are asking something; tell me how.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister would always ask me what he should do! That is a very intelligent suggestion. [Interjections.]

At least make an intelligent suggestion.

Mr. Speaker, may I put it to the hon. the Minister in this way: Will he consider changing it so as to take away the racial connotation? Will he consider that?

Where is the racial connotation? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the way that hon. Minister dodges questions …

Order! The hon. member and the Minister must not have a private conversation.

Very well, Sir, but we shall remember that when he puts so many questions to us. The second point I want to quote from this Calvinist group in Potchefstroom—and not the PFP in Cape Town—is the following—

It does seem to me that we deserve some sort of direct answer to this because this Government has said, time and time again, that it bases its philosophy, its ideology and its politics on Christian nationalism. So one has to take the primary source of Christian teaching, the Bible, and weigh that up against the policies of this Government or any Government which claims to be Christian. That is all I am asking for. I think, however, this Government is found wanting, not only because of the prevailing hardships or the bad reputation it gives this country, but also as measured against the basic tenets of Holy Scripture. That is the gravamen of my charge.

In the few minutes left to me I want to refer to another Act.

Why do you not answer my question?

Just a minute. Let me just refer to this. Let us look at the South African Citizenship Act, No. 44 of 1949, more specifically section 6(2)(c), and I quote—

That term is still being used. I quote further—

In other words, if a White man from South Africa goes overseas he may, for example,meet a Vietnamese girl. If they were to have children, by statute those children have no claim whatsoever to South African citizenship. That is a further hardship imposed by this Government. One only has to think of the tragic circumstances surrounding a person like Breyten Breytenbach. In his own testimony in court he said that the first time he began to be deeply concerned about this country and its policies was when it was not possible for him to return to his country with his wife and live a normal life. That is the kind of disaster or tragedy that such Acts visit upon our own people. We therefore strongly urge this House to repeal these Acts now.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to reply briefly to what was said by the hon. member for Pinelands. I was rather surprised that this turbulent young priest entered this debate at all because he is, to say the least, an admirer of Black Consciousness movements, and I want to tell the hon. member that no one who is an adherent of the Black Consciousness Movement would support him.

That is not true.

They simply will not support him.

I do not agree.

Well, it is a fact.

According to you, I should know.

I am very pleased to have that admission. I have been waiting a long time to get such an admission from the hon. member.

I said “according to you”.

No, not according to me. That is a full and complete admission if not a confession, and I want to thank the hon. member for it. At least we now know where he stands.

As if you do not know more about it!

If that hon. hen would stop laying eggs, I might be able to spend my time more fruitfully.

Mr. Speaker …

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

He has withdrawn it.

I have withdrawn it; so you may sit down! The hon. member for Pinelands makes me aware of the fact that the devil can also quote Scripture at times.

*He wants to start discussing all sorts of Bible stories with me. He wants to engage me in a theological argument.

Well, it is important.

Awfully important! But does he not first settle the matter with his own ministers and all other ministers before he comes here and argues with members of Parliament? Why does he not do that first? Then he can come and tell us what all the different Synods said and what the decisions of those Synods are. Then we can respect him. But when he comes here to score points against us with the Bible, we cannot appreciate it.

I now wish to refer to the hon. member for Rondebosch. I concede that he is an honest member of Parliament. When one has been brought up conservatively and has swung to the left, it always happens that one honestly moves to the left and one keeps going more and more to the left. That is what the hon. young member is doing. However, he is at least honest enough. I hope that I understood his argument correctly. If I understood his argument correctly, he alleged that if these two laws were to be done away with, the structure of separate development as a policy would collapse. For the sake of argument I want to accept that that is so. But the hon. member stopped too soon with those wonderful examples which he quoted so dramatically. If he had followed through his argument to its logical conclusion, the policy of his new party would also have collapsed. I am referring to that structural set-up of the PFP about which such big play has been made by certain ex-lordships. [Interjections.] Then the whole federal structure collapses. Oh, yes! If they want to pursue the chimera of a completely homogeneous society in South Africa—and that is what the PFP is doing—then they must follow through their policy to its logical conclusion. In that case they must not only aim at the repeal of the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act. They must then also exert themselves for the repeal of all the so-called discriminating laws to which the hon. member for Pinelands so often refers.

Yes.

The hon. member for Sea Point must then be content to let the people use his swimming bath and he must not object to it. All the residential areas will then also be thrown open.

Yes.

Schools will have to be thrown open to all races.

Yes.

Parliament will then also have to be made accessible to all, and a numerical majority government will have to be brought about.

Yes.

We must not live in such a dream-world. We must not place one foot in a homogeneous South Africa and with the toe of the other foot try to touch the multiracialism in South Africa. In that case we will have to be honest with ourselves. That party will then have to do away with all those structures which we have read about in the newspapers, for example the federal structures with which they are trying to bluff and fence in the Black people, whilst on the other hand they are promising the Black people a federal set-up with the Supreme Court at the top of the structure. Surely they know that structure better than I do. If they are honest and want to bring their policy to fulfilment, the people in South Africa will be able to vote, to love—the way the hon. member for Pinelands wants it—to live together, move about, gain admission to Parliament, use the same swimming bath, eat at the same restaurant, live in the same residential area and attend the same school. The present set-up will then vanish completely.

People can even play rugby together. [Interjections.]

People will then be able to do a great many more things together than merely to play rugby. This policy is of course not the one advocated by that little party, the NRP, which wants people to live in both directions. If the Black people come and sit in this Parliament, not only they, but also the PFP, will vanish from Parliament.

We shall see about that.

The young hon. member for Rondebosch will then be able to say in all his honesty that it is his philosophy fulfilled and that he accepts it that way. To the political realist who has his feet on the ground and who can see with his own two eyes that people of other races live in South Africa with him, this policy is not practical and logical. This has nothing to do with race discrimination, because we concede that every person is entitled to his human dignity. We are even prepared to add a plus. Why do we never hear a request from the people in the Black areas that these laws should be repealed? The Progs are the only ones who always campaign so diligently for the repeal of these laws. They are the only ones who always want integration. Does the hon. member not know, then, that that commission of inquiry found that one of the causes of the riots which broke out and in which Indians were murdered was that there were allegations that Indian men wanted to marry Zulu women and had indeed committed immoral acts with them? That was why the axes went into action. That was why unrest arose in South Africa. Unrest broke out because, like the hon. members on the other side, they wanted to be unrealistic. When one is a political realist, when one takes a straight look at one’s country and one’s nation, one realizes that every person is entitled to his human dignity, but also that every person is entitled to his background. The hon. members on the other side who say that there are no differences between people in South Africa …

We never said that.

… should have their heads examined, because that is what they say all the same.

Let me say that I have not heard this from the Black people. I have had many discussions with them, but they have never told me that the Immorality Act should be repealed. The Black man is proud of his race. He is proud of his nationality. He is proud of his marital laws. He is proud of his wives. He is proud of his children. He does not want to get mixed up with a White woman. This law therefore reflects the social standards which exist in South Africa, not on a discriminatory basis, but on a realistic basis.

That is an indictment of the Coloured people!

Order!

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

Unfortunately I have no time for that now. The hon. member can ask me later, if he does not mind. If I have some time over, the hon. member can put his question. There are many other differences between people. There is not only the difference in customs and in background, but there is also the difference in religion. Did hon. members not notice that a certain person who wanted to marry an Indian woman had to adopt her religion? Most probably her parents told him to do so. But it is disrupting to the rest of his family. His children would not have taken over that religion.

What about the right of the individual?

Let us consider the consequences of a mixed marriage. It results in the birth of children. Not one of the hon. members on the other side has spoken about the interests of the child. If the father is White and the mother Black, the child will be a Coloured. Those are the facts; it is not a classification.

That is an indictment of the Coloured people!

It is not a classification, it is a fact. Can the hon. members not see the facts of South Africa?

What is wrong with being a Coloured child?

Order! The hon. members have had their turn to speak.

What culture and what background group is that child to join? Is he to go to an Afrikaans or English school like his father, or to a Bantu school like his mother? What is his position?

That is a personal choice.

Where is he to go? Can the hon. members not realize all the misery they are going to cause if they want to repeal this law? Can they not see it? Can they not see that the children will start becoming estranged from their parents until the people no longer know where they are going? Let the hon. member for Pinelands tell me what he thinks of that. Let me hear.

Can I answer you?

The hon. member for Houghton says …

I say that there are 2 million Coloured people. What on earth are you talking about?

Do you want more?

You are insulting them.

My dear fellow, can you (“jy”) not understand that the Black man has a particular background in history …

Order! The hon. the Minister must not refer to another hon. member as “jy”.

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member not understand that every person has a cultural background, a historical entity from which he comes, to which he is entitled, which he does not want to leave, and that this is what we are giving effect to?

The hon. member has talked about suicides. Naturally there are suicides when there is blood-guilt and immorality across the colour line. But that is not as a result of the Act.

The law educates.

No, Sir. It is the result of the deed. The deed is responsible for that. It is the result when a married man has transgressed extra-maritally across the colour line and gets caught. He cannot bear the stigma which attaches to that. It is therefore not the Act. Because he cannot bear the stigma, he commits suicide. Who would not do it? The suicides which take place prove that this Act is a good one and that we cannot do otherwise. It is a special morality code which has been transgressed and someone commits suicide because he has transgressed that code.

As far as the Immorality Act is concerned, the Act is aimed in the first place at counteracting prostitution and general licence. The hon. member has said that she is also opposed to prostitution. She has advanced a strange argument, however, because she said that the Act ought to have nothing to do with other people.

It has nothing to do with other people when two people want to live together. If the prostitute wants to prostitute herself, what has it to do with the hon. member? What, in fact, has it to do with anybody else? What has it to do with anybody if she wants to sell her body? She is then damaging her own soul. Surely I cannot say that I or someone else have been harmed thereby. It is the same argument which has been advanced and yet we have laws against that. We must have laws against that, because it is a transgression of a social standard of morality. That is the reason for the legislation. The same applies to the Immorality Act. This Act is directed against prostitution and general licence. This afternoon we had to hear of all the heartbreak cases. Often these things go hand in hand with drug addiction. As a result of the immorality which is committed—not from a mixed marriage, because I am now talking about immorality which often takes places in harbours—children are often born. Such children are usually cared for by the State, but those hon. members do not want a law against that. Those hon. members want me to remove the law.

What about White prostitution?

That is the same; for that reason legislation is essential in that respect as well. It is the same and I agreed with the argument by the hon. member when I said that was the reason why there were also laws against ordinary prostitution.

But that is sufficient!

The hon. member says: “That is sufficient.” I can see that the PFP is not serious in their desire to have this legislation repealed.

What did the Viljoen Commission say about this? That was a commission which sat recently. That commission said—

What about South West Africa? [Interjections.]

Let us see how far this Law goes back. Before Union, there were laws in the provinces prohibiting extramarital intercourse between White women and Bantu men. Legislation in this connection was for example passed in 1902. An example of this is section 14 and section 19 of an ordinance of 1903. In Natal, section 16 of Act 31 of 1903 also made immorality punishable —like the Immorality Act of 1927. These measures date almost from the previous century, Mr. Speaker. These measures are not intended only for the White man. Surely the Black man is proud of himself. Why must the measures be repealed if the Black man does not want miscegenation with the White man? Why does one want to do that? If those hon. members want to come to this House with such an argument, they must bring me important, proud Black men who say that this measure must be repealed and that they are prepared to allow the daughters of their people to marry White men. I tell the hon. members that they will not find such Black people. Those hon. members will not find them anywhere. The Black people are still proud of their background. But those hon. members are prepared to throw their pride to the winds.

[Inaudible.]

We have already done it and we will do it again. I know how much misery such a court case can cause and we are aware of that misery.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendments lapsed.