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

1. (1) to ensure and maintain the political impartiality of these services; and
2. (2) to ensure that the services are of interest and appeal to all sections of the community.

In discussing a subject of this nature, it is essential that members are aware of the power of the medium being considered. Market Research Africa, some four months after the service was initiated, revealed that 22,9% of the White, Coloured and Asiatic communities of South Africa had access to television. The 1976 annual report of the SABC gave the average number of daily viewers as 1 690 000, of which 1 470 000 were Whites. This amounts to approximately 49% of the White population of an age able to view and comprehend, and this, Sir, after only four months after the introduction of television. Prof. Giffard of Rhodes University in a recent article, quoting statistics extracted from the South African National Readership Survey of 1972, had this to say—

In regard to radio, Sidney Head wrote a book which he called Broadcasting in Africa, in which he had the following to say—

Furthermore, the impact of these media on the thinking of the public cannot be underestimated. It is, in fact, enormous. Robert Tyrell, in the book The Work of a Television Journalist, spoke about television and wrote the following—

So it is that the controllers of these media are placed in a situation of the highest trust. As lawyers would put it, they are in a position of uberrima fides. How that trust would be interpreted and handled, in so far as television is concerned, was hinted at in the 12-man report of the Commission of Inquiry into Television in 1971 which stated, inter alia, the following—

Later on in the report mention is made of the duty of the SABC Television Service to inculcate and to promote a love, by all, of South Africa. On the face of it there is not all that much to quarrel with—that is until one remembers the brief, or charter which was handed down on 30 June 1933 to the then new Minister of Public Enlightenment, including radio, in a militaristic European country of that time. That charter of June 1933 stated—

A striking similarity …

A scandalous reference.

… is to be noted in those two concepts.

Why do you not get out of the country?

I do not, however, wish to dwell in the past. I should like to look at the present, at what we have been experiencing over the past two years, and I should like to look particularly at the terms of this motion. It is my charge that even within the framework of what the Nationalist Government would term acceptable politics, the SABC is guilty of the grossest political bias on a daily basis, political bias in the time allowed for political expression, in the views expressed, in the programmes presented and in the very control of the organization itself. These are serious charges so I shall try to deal with them one by one. [Interjections.]

Slimy charges.

Firstly I shall deal with the time allowed. Over the past two years there has been more than one newspaper survey on this aspect. As early as June 1976 there was The Star survey which found that in 24 newscasts Cabinet Ministers and Nationalist politicians were featured 38 times for a total of some 27 minutes.

But they are the rulers of the country!

UP spokesmen, on those same newscasts, were featured six times for a total of two minutes. PRP spokesmen were featured four times for a total time of one minute. During the election of last year a Sunday Times survey revealed that Government politicians enjoyed five times as much time on the box as all Opposition parties combined. Yet it is interesting to note that these figures are not complete. No qualitative survey has yet been published which includes the time spent explaining Government actions and telling us what the news is all about as is done regularly by such Government supporters as Cliff Saunders, Dr. McCrystal, Red Metrovitch, the ever available Otto Krause, who is known as a pillar of objectivity, and of course the hon. branch member for Benoni.

The findings of these surveys have, of course, not been accepted as valid in Government circles since those findings come from sources not in the good books of the Government. What is, however, not known to the House—I am going to reveal it—is that Rhodes University, discerning the need for an objective analysis, not a newspaper analysis but an academic analysis, in September and October last year undertook a survey of the content of SABC-TV newscasts to see if the objective findings would confirm or contradict the findings of recent Press surveys. This content analysis will, I think, be published within the next few days. I have been given permission to quote from it.

I do not have the time to outline the procedures and methodology utilized, but suffice it to say that I am satisfied that it has a scientific approach as a basis and that I am satisfied as to the integrity of its conclusions. It analysed 12 newscasts in English from 19 September to 10 October 1977. Its first factual finding was that about 32% of the time of those newscasts was taken up by political representations and statements made by members of political parties or groups, viz. Cabinet Ministers, Government officials and directly elected representatives of one body or another. How was this time allocated? I shall tell you. NP representatives and Government officials actually shown or heard on the screen accounted for 47% of this time. Statements or quotations from the same NP representatives or Government officials took up a further 34% of the time, making a massive total of 81% of the time spent on politics.

I want to warn the NP that it may well be counter-productive in terms of over-exposure to show their Ministers on the box as much as they do. I have an example of this. I received a letter this week from a constituent of mine. The letter is dated 6 February 1978 and it reads as follows—

Referring to the television appearance of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, he continues—

Towards the end of his letter he says—

He ends his letter in this way—

So you see, Mr. Speaker, that it is not always a good thing to have the Ministers on television.

Let us take another look at the statistics. Non-NP members of Parliament or party members who are not Nationalists were actually seen and heard on the screen during those 12 newscasts for only three minutes and twenty seconds, which represents 4,4% of the time. Statements or quotations from the same non-NP members accounted for another 4%, making a paltry total of 8,4% allowed to Opposition parties.

That is far too much.

Non-White politicians, both in appearance and in statements, took up 10,5% of the time. However, let us not get excited about that, for most of that 10,5% of the time was used up by people such as Dr. Bergins and Chief Kaiser Matanzima who, as we all know, are not overly-critical in their attitude towards the Government. I am rather interested in the case of Dr. Bergins. He has found a great deal of fame in recent times on television and I find this interesting. He is the leader of a small minority Coloured party enjoying little electoral success and yet, whenever the viewpoint of a Coloured leader is required, it is he that is called upon to give that viewpoint and not anyone from the majority party of the Coloured community, the Labour Party. This allows the SABC to present to South Africa a distorted and unrepresentative view of what Coloured people are really thinking. To work further towards the fringes of what I would say is “acceptable politics”, non-White politicians outside the power structure during that period enjoyed no time at all on television, either in the sense of being seen or being quoted.

There is an argument which is used to counter these facts. It is that it has always been the case that appearances are allowed and that statements are accepted on the objective test of newsworthiness. That is the argument, is it not? Yet, Mr. Speaker, during an election period, when the news, views, reactions, statements and announcements of all political parties seeking election were important to the electorate and were eagerly awaited, the NP was allowed 61 minutes and 42 seconds compared with the six minutes and 23 seconds allowed to all opposition parties. This is objectivity turned upside down. [Interjections.]

Now you are talking through your hat.

The promotion of Government viewpoints and policies by quoting its representatives, while seldom inviting the views of its critics, is just one of the ploys and just one of the techniques used in the grand plan of the SABC brainwash. That is not all, Mr. Speaker. There are other techniques which are used, such as slanted reports, well rehearsed interviews of Ministers and officials and non-critical and almost fawning questions. Examples are aplenty but my time is limited so I will quote but one. Only hours before the general election the SABC was still punting for a Nationalist victory and were punting the Nationalist point of view. On this occasion, on the eve of the general election, they used a certain Brig. Coetzee of the Security Police in an effort to justify the most controversial actions of the hon. the Minister of Justice during the elections. His actions were, in fact, an election issue in themselves. The questions asked of Brig. Coetzee were innocuous; they were leading questions. These questions allowed him to explain to South Africa that the incidence of violence had decreased in the townships since the detentions and the bannings. That is good and well and I am sure that his statistics were not incorrect. However, I ask: Why were not a few proper and pertinent questions put to that brigadier during the interview held at that time? Such questions could have been: “Why were these dangerous people who have been banned and detained, not brought to trial, Brig. Coetzee?” That is a question the interviewer should have asked.

Those were policy matters.

He could also have been asked: “What, in your view, were the reasons for the outbreak of violence in the townships? Is there, in fact, any dissatisfaction in the townships? If not, why is that dissatisfaction manifest?” In fact, Mr. Speaker, why were no Black township residents who were even slightly critical of the Government ever interviewed to find out what they thought about the matter? I believe that it is incredible that after 17 months of unrest in South Africa, particularly Black unrest, at no time were Black people who were even remotely critical of the Government, given an opportunity to state their views in any in-depth discussion panel. In fact, SABC TV is one of the few television stations in the free world which does not have a decent, in-depth and live current affairs programme. Because of past indiscretions even the programme “Midweek” is now to be prerecorded and censored by those norm-conscious individuals I spoke of a few minutes ago. Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is not the same for all programmes. “Verslag” carries on as it wishes, that programme being the counterpart of “Midweek” or “Spectrum”. However, that programme is not restricted because its presenter, its panelists and its subjects are considered to be “safe” by SABC standards.

There is, however, yet another side of the coin—i.e. what is going on in that glass palace in Auckland Park? What is actually happening there? This is not an easy question to answer nor is it easy information to find, because officials, producers, writers, actors and commentators are not allowed to speak to the Press at the very risk of their jobs, let alone to Opposition politicians. Their careers are constantly on line. Despite all this I have, during the past months, spoken to quite a few television-orientated people, both English and Afrikaans, Nationalist and non-Nationalist. I do not wish to, and in fact I have undertaken not to, identify them any more closely than that. I cannot relate all that was told to me, because some of it was rather subjective. What I can do, however, is to look at what was told to me by a number of people across the spectrum of the SABC. I can tell the House what I found to be unanimous—where there was total consensus among those people. I can set out, in fairness, what I found in unanimity.

The first such point is that the morale of the English programmes department is low and dropping continually. The reasons for this are several. The first is that mediocrity and political docility are passports to promotion. For instance, the main previous experience that the producer of that flop show, “The All-night Election Review”, had was to have produced the “Nicky-nacky Noo Show”. There is overall agreement that producers are restricted grossly in the choosing of scripts, of subject matter and of panelists. Even then, as just about nothing of a “current affairs” nature is broadcast live, if anything of a political or controversial nature does slip through which the Director of Television Services does not like, it is quickly cut or spiked altogether. The turnover in staff and presenters on the documentary side of SATV over the two-year period is practically 100%. Although the SABC TV is seldom where the action is and relies heavily on belated action photographs and background, there is little investigative reporting, if any at all, which is encouraged or allowed. News film is carefully censored and selected so as to produce nothing which is critical of the Government, nor anything which might produce any form of alarm amongst the South African public. There was consensus that the newscasts and the actuality programmes are professionally sloppy and are so as a direct result of political control over the work of these people. One man who is close to the SABC, but not in it, referring to producers and interviewers said to me and I quote—

Another interesting point which evoked general agreement was the method by which the popularity of or the public reaction to a programme is gauged. America has its Nielsen ratings, Britain has its in-depth surveys. The SABC also has certain survey material of a quantitative nature, but not of a qualitative nature. This survey material is largely ignored. Press criticism is not only ignored, it is held in contempt. What is all-important, however—hon. members might find this interesting—is the number of letters and telephone calls received, perhaps even from the lunatic fringe, as to the merits of any given programme. These phenomena are the main deciding factors in the fate of a programme, a producer or an interviewer.

On one subject there was, however, total unanimity, i.e. it is almost, if not completely, impossible to obtain permission for Black artists to appear on the screen. It seems that, except in exceptional circumstances, Black artists will have to wait until 1981.

What, you may ask, Mr. Speaker, can be done about all this? I believe the answer lies in the terms of the motion before the House today. Our first choice would be that the Board of Control, the dispenser of policy, should cease to be as it is at the present time a mere extension of the NP Cabinet. This can only be brought about if the right of appointment of that board is not solely in the hands of the Government. Token appointments of non-Whites and interest groups to subsidiary boards are not going to solve the problem. The only way that the problem can be solved and the objectivity of that board and of control of the SABC restored, is if the appointment of the board is not solely in the hands of the Government. It is my view that the Board of Control of the SABC should reflect the public nature of the corporation itself. It should be representative of all the communities. It should comprise appointees of interest groups, of the arts, of commerce, of industry, of English and Afrikaans educational and cultural institutions, appointed by those institutions, and not carefully selected appointees by the Government. If this solution is rejected, as I suspect it will be, there is one further avenue to promote, bearing in mind that persons or groups aggrieved by any presentation have at the present time no recourse or right of redress whatsoever where bias or partiality is involved.

That avenue is to demand that an independent authority, chaired by a judge, be set up with power to hear complaints on bias, partiality and unfairness. I want to stress that such an authority will have no power of censorship and no power or right to influence the programmes of the SABC. It should, however, have three basic functions and powers, all of them powers of redress. Firstly, it should have the power to order that corrections be broadcast or screened where this is deemed proper. Secondly, it should have the power to order that an aggrieved person, company, group or political party be allowed the right of reply on the radio or the television where this is desirable and fair and, thirdly, it should have the power to order that the terms of any of its judgments be broadcast or screened as it may deem equitable.

A watchdog of this sort should not be necessary in a democratic society which has an independent broadcasting authority. Such a watchdog runs a very poor second to a truly independent radio and television service geared, as it should be, to the needs and the sentiments of a whole population. However, I think it is clear from what I have said and from what others are going to say after me, that we have not got this independent authority controlling our broadcasting services. I believe the SABC has failed all except the NP Government and that it is now time that it must be called to account.

Mr. Speaker, we find it striking that the hon. member for Sandton used the same argument in the House today as the refugee, Donald Woods, used at the UN. I want to quote what Donald Woods said at the UN. He said—

Therefore, you see, Sir, how these people think alike. Where does this almost hysterical attack on the television and radio services of the SABC come from? One finds the same hysteria in the newspapers which support that party. The reason for this is that since television made its appearance, these people could no longer play the game which they were so used to playing in this country. Over the years they told the people of South Africa and the readers of English-language newspapers the most horrible stories about those who govern this country. They said that the rulers were cruel, inhuman and that they were suppressors. For years the English-speaking people believed these newspapers. In the meantime, however, television has been introduced and as luck would have it, the Afrikaans and English programmes are being presented on the same channel. For the first time the readers of English-language newspapers could see how they had been misled all these years and that the rulers of this country were not man-eaters, but approachable people who are ready to sacrifice everything for the welfare of the people in this country. What is more, television has done South Africa the great service of bringing the language groups in South Africa closer together. Now they hear one another’s language when they watch the programmes. This has pricked the bubble of the Opposition Press and those hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. It exposed the game which these people played in order to keep the language groups apart and play the one off against the other. Television is a mirror which exposes everything and hides nothing. In this way it unmasked a lie in this country. Television has brought people closer to one another and demonstrated that they feel and think very much the same way about many things. That is why the hon. member for Sandton is so upset about television and that is why he has introduced that motion here. He, his political hangers-on and their newspapers can no longer play their game of isolating the English-speaking people. Their game is up. That is why they introduce motions like this one. They are probably angry, too, because some of their newspapers, newspapers that were the ringleaders in that game, are now starting to experience financial and political problems and have had to lay off some of their people. That is why they are angry about the television service.

I want to raise another matter. The hon. member had a great deal to say today about the “over-exposure” of Ministers on television. I want to refer to an attack that has been made on the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs over the past few days. The SABC is being criticized because it put on a repeat broadcast of the television programme “Face the Nation”, in which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs appeared. They say this is an example of how television is abused. However, what are the facts of the matter? The hon. the Minister’s conduct on television was a hit. Everyone agrees on that. Twenty-five million people watched it in America. However, its impact was much wider than this.

That issue has not been raised.

The hon. the Minister struck an important blow for South Africa with the masterly way in which he did his duty during his television appearance by replying to a vicious barrage of questions. He also made use of the opportunity to state South Africa’s case effectively. There were moments of tension and drama in that programme, but there were also moments of pleasure for South Africans to see him in action. It was a unique opportunity for South African viewers. However, many thousands of South Africans did not see that broadcast because it was not announced in advance that it would be broadcast. That is why it was decided, as a result of the great demand, to repeat that television programme. There were hundreds of telephone calls from people who asked for it. Amongst those calls were many from English-speaking people. Even a newspaper like the Rand Daily Mail—the newspaper which supports those hon. members— ’phoned and asked whether that programme could not be repeated. Now the hon. members on that side are moaning because the programme was repeated and they are making snide remarks. Is this not a disgrace? Is it not an act of disloyalty, to say the least of it? The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is making great sacrifices in the interest of South Africa. He is also making those sacrifices to try and save the skins of those hon. members. He is standing in the firing-line for South Africa, and then the hon. member for Musgrave, a member of that party, sneeringly refers to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs in a newspaper report as a “film actor”. It is also said that the hon. the Minister is competing with “Rich man, poor man”. All that remains for those hon. members, all that they should still have done, was publicly to choose sides with the enemies of South Africa as they have done before, as they did when they threw in their lot during the election with the Carters and the Youngs, until they realized that the voters did not like it. Then they did an about-face.

A repeat broadcast of “Face the Nation” was presented because it was very newsworthy and because it was of the greatest importance to South Africa, its readers and viewers, and for no other reason. It was not meant to give the hon. the Minister a second “exposure”, as they claim. This has been done before. It is interesting that the Press, the Press that supports those hon. members too, showed us how newsworthy the conduct of the hon. the Minister was. Their Press does not agree with them on this matter. The Argus’ correspondent from New York writes—

Mr. James Lodge, the local critic of The Argus, points out to us how essential it was to repeat that television broadcast, but those hon. members say it should not have taken place. The Argus says it should have. It does not agree with that party. I should like to read out to hon. members what Mr. James Lodge wrote in The Argus about why it had to be repeated. He said—

This newspaper agrees that it should have been repeated. The Cape Times is another newspaper that supports that party. Mr. Brian Barrow of The Cape Times also commented on this. He said—

We are not arguing about that.

I am very pleased that that hon. member has thrown in the towel and is not arguing about it. But then he must stand up now and say he repudiates the hon. member for Musgrave who said that it should not have happened. I shall read out a little more of what Mr. Brian Barrow had to say. He said—

What has all this got to do with the motion?

It has everything to do with it. Now it can be understood why television went so far as to give the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs a second opportunity to state his case. What does this prove to us? It proves that those hon. members run away with something without having any grounds for doing so. And this is how the hon. member for Sandton ran away with things here today without having any sound foundation for many of his arguments. This shows us that we must not take their arguments seriously when they come up with accusations of this nature. They are so blinded by their prejudices that they cannot look at a situation in a level-headed way. We have heard the accusation that TV is being over-burdened with the faces of the Ministers. The hon. the Prime Minister and other hon. Ministers do in fact appear more frequently on TV. But how else? By virtue of the important positions which they hold, they are the decision-makers of the Government, and a decision-maker is a newsmaker. That is why he is always in the limelight, in all the news media in the world. It does not matter whether it is TV or radio or the newspapers. The Minister takes a decision. Therefore he is a newsmaker. Hon. members of the PFP have nothing to offer. [Interjections.] What do they actually want to do on TV? [Interjections.]

I now come to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Surely he cannot expect to appear on TV more often than he has already done. [Interjections.] I think the television service has treated the hon. the leader very well. The hon. the leader is not a newsmaker. After all, we have seen here in the House that the hon. the leader has nothing to contribute. [Interjections.] We have seen how unimaginative the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is. For the same reason he seldom makes the front page of the newspapers. How then can he get onto the television screen? [Interjections.] Hon. members of the PFP must please not be angry with the television service if their leader is not newsworthy; and not roadworthy either! [Interjections.] Hon. members of the PFP should rather choose themselves a stronger leader, someone with more imagination. They should choose a bigger newsmaker.

The judge! [Interjections.]

The television service will definitely take more notice of a stronger leader. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sandton made wild accusations about the SABC here. I should like to refer to a few of them before my time expires.

One of his accusations was that the radio and television service are not unbiased. Hon. members of the Opposition always claim to be speaking on behalf of the English-speaking people in South Africa. However, I want to put it to them that, in this case, the English-speaking people do not agree with them. I am going to prove it too. I have here a cutting from the Sunday Tribune of 21 August 1977. By the way, this is also a newspaper which supports the PFP. This newspaper comes to the following conclusion on this matter—

Mr. Speaker, this reply comes from their own camp. [Interjections.] The newspaper goes on to say—

Therefore, even the Rhodes students say so. [Interjections.] Why should we therefore attach any value to what the hon. member for Sandton said here today? Hon. members realize that there are no grounds at all for these arguments of the hon. member for Sandton. The SABC has, over a period of 42 years, succeeded very well indeed in accomplishing the difficult task which it was created for. The SABC has acted so correctly, so objectively and with such equilibrium over the years that its integrity as one of the most well-balanced broadcasting systems in the world is still intact today. The hon. member for Sandton can say what he likes, he will not be able to deny this. That is why, as an amendment to the motion before the House, I should now like to move the following—

1. (1) the positive role played by the SABC over the years in producing and broadcasting entertainment programmes; and
2. (2) the objective and responsible way in which the SABC has fulfilled its role as a disseminator and an interpreter of local and international news”.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the hon. member for Bloemfontein North has moved the amendment. In the course of his speech he accused this side of the House of moving a hysterical motion. In this connection it is very interesting to note that the hon. member is the Chief Information Officer of the NP. In his voice and his speech of today I detect a note of revenge in the sense that since the Government has control of the SABC, and it does not like the way in which the English-speaking Press has been operating over the last few years, it can do exactly what it wants. I see this as an admission by the hon. member that the charges made by the hon. member for Sandton are very substantial. The NP is now using the SABC as a countermeasure.

I wish to support the motion of the hon. member for Sandton. The hon. member dealt rather substantially with the biased and partisan view of SATV. It is my task today to try to deal with the SABC; in other words, with the SABC’s broadcasting function and not its television function. In support of the hon. member’s motion I want to say that the general public of South Africa has the impression that the SABC, in its broadcasting as well as its television functions, is an instrument of the NP.

That is nonsense.

The public does have that impression. I want to admit immediately that in so far as broadcasting is concerned it is the case that if one wants to hear certain things broadcast, one agrees with the broadcast. On the other hand, if one does not like certain things broadcast, one does not agree with the broadcast. The hon. member, however, should realize that there are many members of the public who do not like to hear certain things broadcast. The SABC is, in fact, an instrument of the nation of South Africa. It is paid for by the taxpayers of South Africa. The SABC received the vast amount of R43 million—the hon. the Minister will be in a position to say whether I have the amount correct—in the form of licences. The public feels that it has a stake in the SABC and therefore it has a right to an impartial and unbiased service.

When it comes to broadcasting political issues and the handling of such issues by the news media, I agree that there should be some form of control. The hon. member has mentioned the question of the Press, but we all know that there is a Press Council to which objections can be referred and complaints made. A judge is in charge of the Press Council and the council is, therefore, in a position to deal with such objections and complaints. However, there is no equivalent body to deal with complaints that the SABC, in either its broadcasting or television function, has been biased. That is why the hon. member for Sandton has moved that such a body be established. I am in favour of the proposal that such a body be established for the purposes of hearing complaints and objections.

Are you in favour of the Press Council?

I am in favour of the Press Council; of course I am.

I am glad to hear that.

I now want to deal with the Radio Act. Earlier during the session we dealt with amending legislation in so far as the Act is concerned and it is quite clear that only the SABC is empowered to broadcast. We must therefore accept that we have as a broadcasting corporation a clear monopoly. It should be treated as a monopoly, but the monopoly should, on the other hand, ensure that the views it puts across are fair, unbiased and impartial. I believe the South African public is intelligent enough to come to the right conclusion if both views are laid before it. We must accept that our public has enough intelligence and that it should be given the right views. Sir Winston Churchill once said that there was always a good reason for something and there was always a real reason. Very often we hear a good reason; we do not often hear the real reason. That is where broadcasting and the subtleties of propaganda come in. I do not want hon. members to get the impression that we condemn outright the whole of the television service and the whole SABC broadcasting system. A lot of good work is done and many good programmes are presented. The SABC goes out of its way, for example, to cater for the Indian community and to present programmes for the Radio Bantu service. The SABC does manage to satisfy a great number of members of the public. We must, however, achieve a truly impartial and unbiased presentation of news, and this includes political views. In other words, what must be presented are balanced programmes. I have some experience of television’s approach, for example, to the municipal elections in March. At the time there was a coalition between the UP—as it was then—and the NP. There were three television broadcasts about this. In the first broadcast all the leaders were interviewed, but in the other two programmes they forgot about the other leaders and merely went ahead and represented selective views.

Because of the method of presentation, people come to the conclusion that this is a Nationalist machine, firstly because of the general tenor of the broadcasting itself and secondly because of the composition of the board. I am not criticizing members of the board itself, but I think it could be increased to give a more balanced view to the public. Thirdly there is the question of publications to which I shall refer presently. When I put the overall picture together, it will be shown why the public comes to this conclusion.

It is interesting that the hon. member for Bloemfontein North referred to the Sunday Tribune of 28 August because on 21 August, in the very same newspaper, a certain gentleman, Anthony Swift, published the results of a comprehensive study of the type of broadcasting done by the SABC. In fact, he spent 10 days in solid listening. He published his findings on 21 August. For six days he listened to Radio South Africa and came up with a number of points I think I should like to tell the House about. Cabinet Ministers were constantly being quoted and interviewed, and they, of course, can persuade the listeners to their points of view. When Blacks and Coloureds are interviewed, they are always pro-Government. May I ask when last Mr. Buthelezi was given an interview on the radio? May I also ask whether the views of Inkatha have ever been put across by the SABC? Has the Black Sash ever been interviewed on radio? Has the hon. members for Houghton ever given her political views? She did once, it is true, give her views on abortion. How many counter-views are constantly being broadcast? Do Opposition spokesmen get the opportunity to comment on Cabinet Ministers’ posts? Let us also hear the other side, not all persons employed by or connected with the SABC are Government supporters. In view of how they might feel about propaganda, they must find their positions very frustrating.

It is interesting to note what Anthony Swift had to say. He mentioned that Mr. Connie Mulder had said that South Africa’s position had weakened as a result of attitudes under Mr. Carter, but Mr. Mulder was not challenged to say whether this was also as a result of South Africa’s policies. The Minister of Finance, Mr. Owen Horwood, spoke about overseas capital and about investments but was not pressed to show the foundations of his arguments. Mr. Swift also referred to a broadcast at the time involving the chairman of the West Rand Bantu Board who spoke about the raising of rents in Soweto, but no one was allowed to present a counter-view, especially not any member of Soweto itself. He mentioned a labour adviser broadcasting from overseas, but his views went completely unchallenged. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs was also quoted as saying that South Africa had a strategy to deal with the many threats facing the country, and was able to dismiss the threats as malicious without being called upon to say what the threats were or, in fact, what the strategy was. Those are some of the examples furnished by Mr. Swift. From his analysis of South Africa, it also emerges that when other governments’ views of South Africa are unfavourable to this country, they are criticized and discredited. There were also many broadcasts about riots, strikes and shootings. A special technique is used: Firstly, there are the one sided reports; secondly, there are interviews with Governments or their officials; and, thirdly, there is the type of selection involved, in the 10 days during which Anthony Swift listened, he counted 40 statements by Ministers and officials as against two statements by Opposition MPs, none of which were at all critical of the Government. Then he quotes the Ministers, but I have already referred to that.

He refers particularly to interviews like the interview with John Chettle of the South Africa Foundation which he heard in the 10 day period. There was also an interview with the right-wing French politician, Mr. Jacques Sonstell, who was introduced with a great fanfare. Then there was also an interview with the South African lobbyist in Washington, Mr. Donald Dekieffer, who was given a lot of prominence at that stage.

In addition, there is the promotion of Government-recognized Black spokesmen, who were quoted 24 times, and none of whom suggested that there was any real Black discontent in South Africa at all. On Saturdays there is Mr. Devar’s programme, the Indian programme, which I am sure the Indian community appreciates, but Mr. Devar is pro-government at all times. In the particular programme overheard, he gave a long plug to the Industrial Development Corporation, speaking of the good they were doing and of how they functioned. Then, very joyfully, there was a broadcast by Chief Lennox Sebe in which he said that urban Black representation in the White Parliament was not acceptable to him. There were repeated calls on South Africa by Pastor Ndjoba of Owambo for South African forces to help him oust Swapo.

There was, however, substantial criticism of governments elsewhere. The United Democratic Party of Lesotho, which is in opposition to the government there, attacked the Lesotho Government for not recognizing the Transkei. Unita was given many opportunities to attack the MPLA movement as well as Swapo and the Gulf Oil Company, accusing them of horrors without a reply being sought. President Carter was knocked by a bunch of American speakers, none of whose names were given, when he discussed the question of Russia’s policies. The actions of the British Labour Party were presented in the light of comment by Conservative Party spokesmen where favourable towards South Africa. According to Swift, on every day there was also a barrage of reports on violence and strife in that connection. In fact, he counted 20 such reports on one particular day. However, there were certain exceptions. As I say, it is not our intention to knock the whole of the broadcasting service. Nigel Murphy gave a very good broadcast on the Cape Flats and the tens of thousands of homeless Blacks, but that broadcast was of course finished off by a Government spokesman who said it would present a health hazard if the state of affairs on the Cape Flats was allowed to continue. When there was a minor clash on Aborigine Day in Australia, this was also reported. We did not hear anything about the Immorality Act as far as Minister Schoeman was concerned. We did, however, hear of bussing in Los Angeles, the West Indian problem in London and the Moluccan problem in Holland. We also heard of the blocking of an American ambassador’s speech on 4 July. There was also a barrage of material against communist countries: A rough count showed 60 items in seven days. That was the type of broadcasting heard at that time.

I want to turn, if I may, to what I regard as the biggest complaint against the SABC as far as its broadcasting services are concerned. I refer to the programme “Current Affairs”. I do not think anyone would want to dispute that that programme is a political broadcast. Special reference deserves to be made to this broadcast. A certain gentleman, whose name I cannot mention, unfortunately, together with Cliff Saunders directly supported Government statements, without reservations, on “Current Affairs”, which is a matter for critical comment. On that programme the Government’s point of view is given at all times. In this regard I want to put two questions to the hon. the Minister. Firstly, why did the SABC decline to give the name of the author of “Current Affairs” and, secondly, why do they decline to give us the name of the reader of “Current Affairs”? In respect of every single programme the name of the author and reader is gladly divulged, except in the case of “Current Affairs”. This immediately gives rise to the irresistible presumption that the purpose is in fact to indoctrinate and that that is why the names of these people are being hidden. What conclusion can the public of South Africa or people elsewhere come to— this programme is certainly beamed all over the world—other than that those names are being withheld because there is something to hide? This is one of the biggest complaints in this regard. Swift goes into this matter and he gives an example concerning “Current Affairs”. Referring to an OAU Conference, “Current Affairs” reported: “Concern for Soviet interference in the Continent brought the moderates in force to Libreville”. It then turned to the conference and spoke about the three radical premiers who turned up at the conference. It then gave the impression that there was an overwhelming majority of moderates. The reader asked: Who are the moderates? The nine o’clock news accused the OAU Conference of hypocrisy. “Current Affairs” said as follows the following day—

The commentary played on the extravagance of the accommodation bought for the summit meeting and elaborated on the inter-State suspicion and strife from all parts of the Black continent.

There is also a White continent, says Swift, and then there is the question of the moderates. It would appear that the “reasonable man” who are referred to are potential allies. He comes to the conclusion that they were categorized in this way depending on how their actions impinged on the interests of South Africa. In other words, yesterday’s moderates are today’s hotheads. These are the conclusions he comes to.

A French politician was given an introduction under a fanfare. He was interviewed on a right-wing basis and passed an opinion on the homeland policy.

Another subtle aspect of broadcasting is the use of certain words by the interviewer such as “our traditional allies” or “shunning us”. “Us” does not mean the whole of South Africa, but the Government and NP policy. The homelands policy is not a policy that the whole of South Africa agrees with, but the policy of the National Government and those who support the Government. These are the criticisms that are levelled, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that every opportunity should be given to balance one person’s view with another point of view, particularly when the matter at stake is critical. Under these circumstances another point of view should, in fact, be given. What is needed, is that the public should be assured and that their confidence should be regained. There are a number of other criticism which I unfortunately do not have time to deal with due to the limited time at my disposal. There is, for example, the question of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. That council actually passed a motion on 15 September calling upon the Government to abolish all forms of discrimination spread by the media. This was brought about as a result of this type of broadcasting. Even the NP found that there was bias on the SABC. A memorandum was sent to the Administrator-General for South West Africa, Justice Steyn, in this regard. The following report appeared in Windhoek on 17 September.—

This I find rather interesting and I am sure hon. members will too.

Even as far as the Blacks are concerned, I have a report that radio listeners hit out at the Zulu services. The Rev. Dladla, of the United Congregational Church, said one example of this was the amount of radio publicity given to the killing of members of the Police Force. Mr. Sele, another listener, also expressed criticism. It is therefore clear that the Zulu population too complained in this regard. It was even reported that Chief Kaiser Matanzima had told his people not to listen to the SABC’s news services. There is also the case of Wena Odendaal, who at 8 o’clock on a Wednesday morning was told in a letter that she had been dismissed the night before. There is also the question of “Radio Today” and “Dagboek”. One finds that that was given to Perskor. One can then take note of the directors of Perskor, some of whom sit in the front benches of this House. Other directors used to sit in those benches. If one puts all these things together, one can only come to the irresistible conclusion that the SABC is in the hands of the NP. It is obvious that they pull the strings and that they say the things and put across the propaganda they want to.

Our appeal is therefore for an impartial radio and television service for South Africa, with an unbiased view. Let the public be the best judge. Put both sides of the matter across. Let us have the board mentioned by the hon. member for Sandton so that any objections or appeals received can be considered by such a body.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow spoke mainly on the topic of radio. I intend to deal more with television. Before doing so, however, I would like to respond to remarks passed by the hon. member for Bloemfontein North a little earlier this morning. The hon. member had a lot to say about the “Face the Nation” broadcast which featured the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

That was a very good speech.

I am not, for one minute, decrying the fact that it was a very good speech. I think the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs did extraordinary well. He faced a hostile group of interviewers—there were three of them—but he was facing the nation of the USA and my argument is that I want to see the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs face this nation, my nation, with interviewers who can interview at the same level as those gentlemen interviewed him. I want to hear the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs who, yeas ago, said in the United Nations—it is quite easy to say it over there—that discrimination must go, because he is “tjoepstil” in South Africa. I want him to say here, in this country and on our television to our nation what he thinks. Stop the rebroadcasting of “Face the Nation”. The hon. the Minister did well, but let him now do it “tuis, hier by ons”.

We support the motion introduced by the hon. member for Sandton, but we feel it does not go far enough. There is, however, no sense in us trying to think in terms of an amendment, because if one really had to amend the motion, it would require a ream of paper to cover all the points that should be covered in respect of the bias that we have, particularly on the SABC Television Service. It is very easy to be destructive, but we only need to examine the SABC TV’s service during the election run-up to know that in future years the 1977 election will be known as the “Great Television Election”. I want to warn the Nationalist propaganda machine, that has an open door to the television service, that has an entrée to it at all times, of the old saying that “you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all the people all the time”. Equally I want to say that the SABC Television Service should take note of this warning. If they continue with this blatant political bias, I have another old saying for them, i.e. “beware my friends, for the iceman cometh”.

The growth of the television industry and of SABC Television is of vital importance to the country, because it is a new industry and it is engendering new job opportunities. Its growth will depend entirely on the quality and the content of the service that is doled out to the viewing public. With the quality of the service we have little or no argument and we support the bold steps taken with the introduction of the phase alternation line system, better known as the PAL system. This is a development by a Professor Walter Bruch that has been proved to be a major breakthrough in television communication. I wonder whether the House is aware of the fact that in the space of 10 short years it has already replaced almost the entire transmission equipment used by West German television services. In fact, some 95% of all television programmes in West Germany are today transmitted using this outstanding system, and it is evidenced by the outstanding quality of the programmes that we see that emanate from West Germany.

As I have said, we have no problem with the quality of the service but I would like to spend a little time on the content. Firstly, we have far too much NP ideology rammed down our throats night after night in some form or another. [Interjections.] There was a time when there was a little measure of subtlety about it. Today that is gone, because we get nauseating intervals during which servile, apologetic and almost prostrate interviewers conduct what they try to pass off as “off-the-cuff” interviews with the hon. Cabinet Ministers. The degree of servility and the degree of prostration depends entirely on that Minister’s seniority in Cabinet rank. As a matter of fact, the higher the Minister, the more they almost snivel. [Interjections.]

You are pathetic!

The hon. the Deputy Minister says I am pathetic. That is because the truth has gone straight through him and is hitting him where it hurts most.

You are a “Boerehater”!

Apart from our political education we also have a most peculiar attitude towards dubbing. We have a pattern which is emerging now whereby it would appear that English-speaking South Africans are subjected to American source programmes, while the Afrikaans-speaking viewer is getting the best available from Britain dubbed into Afrikaans. This is the pattern that we have. This trend is causing concern amongst a number of people and they are making their voices heard through the columns of their local newspapers. Permit me, Mr. Speaker, to quote but a few. I have here a letter which appeared in The Natal Mercury of 14 February 1978 and which reads—

Another letter to The Daily News reads—

What about “Rich Man, Poor Man”?

The hon. member asks: What about “Rich Man, Poor Man”? [Interjections.] For heaven’s sake, it is about the only programme worth watching and it is not dubbed.

Falconetti is watching you!

Tonight we are going to have Anthony Quayle, one of the finest actors that has ever used the English language on the stage and screen, speaking to us in Afrikaans in a dubbed programme. Another viewer writes as follows—

So it goes on. These people have a point. Why must programmes like “Van der Valk” and “Sweeney”—better known as “Blitspatrollie”—be dubbed into Afrikaans? Do hon. members imagine that because the name “Van der Valk” is almost like Van der Merwe it is an Afrikaans programme? It is an English programme.

It is a Dutch programme.

It is not a Dutch programme. My hon. friend must watch it and the credits and he will see that it is an English programme with English actors. It is filmed in Holland and produced in England. It is full of typical cockney humour that can never be properly and effectively translated into any other language. Why does the SABC not buy German and other continental programmes for dubbing?

I now want to refer to the news programmes. News is news and comment is comment and I respectfully submit that the twain more often than not will never meet. I must confess that since the election the news service is no longer merely a parade of Ministers—we only see two or three in each newscast.

Do you want more?

No, thank you. There are already more than enough. However, there is far too much comment on television, and to that I object most strongly. It is biased comment and is cleverly interwoven in the news reports. This is a despicable practice, and I urge that the strongest possible measures be taken to put our newscasts on a proper footing. Last night we saw an illustration of what should be done. Perhaps it was screened last night because it was known that this debate would take place today. [Interjections.] On the Afrikaans newscast last night there was a comment by Mr. Sakkie Burger on the Rhodesian settlement and the word “kommentaar” appeared clearly emblazoned on the screen. I have pleaded before and I plead again that in heaven’s name we must have “comment” or “kommentaar” on the screen so that the South African public can know that it is commentary and not news when Cliff Saunders makes his endless commentaries—it would perhaps be even better to remove him from the screen entirely.

There was a howl in the House when the hon. member for Sandton referred to a certain charter of 1933. He was referring to Germany.

In conclusion I want to say what I believe should be done. I want to refer to the Germany of 1945. I wish to quote from a publication called Radio and Television in the Federal Republic of Germany. I want to quote from this publication because it contains what I commend to the House and to the SABC as being the ideals on which the SABC should base its principles. I quote—

This is in the Federal Republic of Germany—

I challenge our lawgivers to do exactly that.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat is not of course aware that we are being boycotted by, among others, the organization Equity in Britain. If it were not for that we should quite probably have been able to present more and better English programmes. When I listen to the Opposition speakers, the arguments they use sound very familiar to me, because they are arguments which I have read over and over during the past few months in their establishment press. It is very clear to me that the hon. members of the Official Opposition are nothing but lackeys of their Press. Reference has been made to the Sunday Times of 6 November 1977 which stated that it had made a survey of 13 television news bulletins over eight days. Therein it was maintained that 10 Government spokesmen had 24 minutes of broadcasting time at their disposal, three NRP spokesmen had five minutes and 25 seconds and three PFP spokesmen, five minutes and 25 seconds. If one is to accept these figures, surely we must see the matter in perspective. People forget that in most instances the Ministers act as executive members of an elected Government and not as party representatives.

In any democratic State there is surely the constitutional distinction between the Government and the governing party of the State. It is true that the policy of the Government party is the policy of the State. In other words, it is a policy which affects everyone in that State, whether we voted for that Government or not. That is why it is necessarily so that more attention be given to Government spokesmen in general. This is so in all countries. In Britain, France, Germany—in fact all the other countries of the world—this is the case. Why should it be different in South Africa? When the Ford administration was in power in America, we saw President Ford and Mr. Kissinger on television or heard them over the radio virtually every day. Mr. Callaghan and Dr. Owen are in the news daily, but we very seldom see the leaders of the Opposition party. For example, many of the hon. members of the official Opposition do not know who Helmut Kohl is. He is the leader of the biggest party in Germany, the Leader of the Opposition in Germany. But everyone knows who Helmut Schmidt is. The examples are many. One could ask: Who is the Opposition leader in Canada, Botswana or Japan? Why do these people not receive the necessary attention? Why are they not so well known? It is because they have received less coverage from the media of their own country than the official spokesmen of the respective Governments. It is because the actions and policies of the Government in any democracy count so much more and the population are so much more interested in them than in those of the Opposition parties. If, therefore, we deduct from the alleged 24 minutes the official statements made by Ministers, the time that remains compares very well with the 5½ minutes for the NRP and the 5¼ minutes for the PFP. Then, if we also deduct the time devoted to Ministerial statements in the election campaign, when there is a lot of political activity, we find that the NP’s spokesmen had only 39% of the available time as against 61% enjoyed by those of the combined Opposition.

May I ask a question?

I am sorry but my time is extremely limited. The PFP had 24% of the time; the NRP, 24%; the SAP 5% and the HNP 8%—all together 61%. The 61% which they were given was far more than they deserved. We must bear in mind that 65,9% of the voters in South Africa voted for the NP.

Yes, but that was before the election! [Interjections.]

If, for argument’s sake, we were also to accept— and this is what the hon. member for Durban Central wants me to do—that the 24 minutes of the NP were devoted purely to political statements, then we must analyse on what grounds the Opposition parties can lay claim to more or less the same time. We must bear in mind that—as the hon. member rightly remarked—at the time of the Sunday Times survey, the Government had 122 seats whereas the NRP—which was then still the official Opposition—had only 27 seats. This is a little more than 25% of the Government’s seats. If, therefore, one multiplies the 5,5 minutes by 4, one gets 22 minutes, which does not compare at all badly with the 24 minutes to which reference has already been made. At the time the PFP had 18 seats. After all, they returned this year with fewer seats. Their 18 seats comprised only one seventh of the Government’s total. If we multiply that by seven, they had almost 37 minutes as against the Government’s 24 minutes. Therefore, what this amounts to is that the governing party had too little time. If we also take into account the fact that the PFP’s 18 seats at that time represented even less than 8% of the votes cast in the previous election, the question arises as to the basis on which the calculation should now be done. We had here a party which represented fewer than 10% of the voters, as against the NP which represented 55,6% of the voters—I am referring to the election of 1974. Now the hon. members are arguing that after all, we all pay licence fees. [Interjections.]

Not only do the Official Opposition and its establishment Press want to get more than their rightful share of the SABC’s news broadcasts, they even demand the same for South Africa’s enemies. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Hillbrow associated himself with a report which appeared in the Sunday Tribune of 21 August 1977. I quote from that report. It contains an accusation levelled at the SABC—

The hon. member for Hillbrow associated himself with this report. This statement speaks volumes for the anti-South African attitude of the Prog establishment, their Press and their hon. members here in the House. After all, a short while ago I pointed out that they were lackeys of their Press. These people want to simply pass off the danger of the communist penetration in Africa as unimportant. Do they not realize that in Angola there is no economic activity left to speak of? Have they forgotten that in 1974, 10 000 people died of starvation in Ethiopia, that over the past 15 years, 5,5 million people have died in Africa as a result of racial clashes? I could continue in this vein. One need only call to mind Idi Amin, who is alleged to have caused the death of 300 000 people. Now the hon. PFP and their Press state that they deny the penetration of communism in Africa. They say it is merely a bogey—a story designed to scare people. According to the Sunday Tribune reporting this is apparently, as they put it—

If the SABC also reports on economic progress and stability in countries like Malawi, the Ivory Coast, Kenya, Botswana and Transkei, then of course nothing is said about that. Apparently that is pure NP propaganda. Those hon. members and their Press are not concerned about facts. In the same article the Sunday Tribune accuses the SABC of—

Is this accusation true? One has to bear in mind that during the Soweto riots, more coverage was given to those events for weeks on end than to any other events in history. Virtually every evening they were reported on for between five and 10 minutes on the television service, while other important mainline news was only given two minutes. Can one regard the Tribune’s accusation as justified when one bears in mind that Dr. Motlane and Mr. Qoboza were questioned more than any other Black leader by Cliff Saunders during the difficulties in Soweto, or if an entire news survey was devoted to an interview with Mr. Tshongarero of Swapo’s internal wing? I could go on in this vein.

The hon. member for Sandton referred to the “Market Research Africa” opinion poll and he referred, too, to the Rhodes University survey. However, what he failed to say was that the finding of Rhodes University was that the political news of SABC-TV was regarded as the most reliable of all the media. The 1820 Settlers’ Foundation found in 1974 that 42% of the English-speaking population regarded the SABC as the most reliable source of impartial political reporting, whereas only 31% were in favour of the hon. member’s Press. This finding is a bitter pill for the hon. Opposition and its Press. During the recent election campaign the former editor of the Sunday Times, Mr. Mervis, who is now the PFP’s MPC for Orange Grove, referred to that once again—

This statement is a disgrace and an insult to the intelligence of the voters of South Africa, to say the least. The truth is simply that the Official Opposition and its Press, the Sunday Times and others of its ilk, can now no longer conceal their unpatriotic nakedness, and that narrow-mindedness and petty politicking is reflected in the paucity of their numbers—a pathetic Opposition!

Mr. Speaker, I think there is one factor on which we all find common cause in all parties represented in this House. That common cause is that television as such is the most powerful medium in terms of mass communication which man has ever known. However, it will be a subjective medium and the activity being offered and analysed from this medium, as in the case of newspapers and radio, will by the very nature of its subjectivity be open to criticism and interpretation from many points of view, depending on whose wheelbarrow one is pushing. The heightened sensitivity which viewers have to this medium increases the social responsibility of those who have been put into positions of high trust to exercise control over the input and, I should like to emphasize, those things which are omitted from a programme. Their sense of social responsibility must be above all possible suspicion. I should like to suggest that the television medium—and here I shall speak about television only because my time is extremely limited—should, as defined in both the report of the Commission of Inquiry of 1971 and the German survey quoted by the hon. member for Umhlanga, fulfil three basic functions. The measure of success achieved in the fulfilment of these three functions by SABC-TV should be the criterion by which we judge whether a more independent authority than we have at the moment should take control of SABC-TV.

The three functions I mentioned are that television, as the most powerful medium in South Africa, should be informative, should be educational and should provide entertainment. As the most powerful medium in the world it is subject to and open to manipulation for the minds of mankind. It is possible to quote statistics from all manner of sources. We have had an instance today of the hon. member for Bloemfontein North quoting statistics from a source such as Rhodes University, statistics directly contradicting statistics from Rhodes University quoted by another hon. member earlier. This shows that statistics cannot always be trusted.

I therefore took it upon myself to do a rather subjective analysis of a randomly selected week’s programmes on SABC-TV in an attempt to arrive at some criteria by which to judge how successfully the board of control is fulfilling its mandate, not only in terms of the report of the Commission of Inquiry but also in terms of universally accepted criteria for television. I shall now present my statistics, and I welcome any additional statistics or observations undertaken by other members themselves. I present these statistics in order to find out to what extent the primary functions of TV are met.

After a classification of a week’s programmes—both English and Afrikaans—I found to my interest that 50% of the programme content was entertainment. This was followed by general information programmes which constitute 48% of the programme content. Educational programmes, by the widest definition I could apply, accounted for only 2% of the programme content. I appreciate the fact that in terms of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, the board of control will consider, within the next few years, the possibility of extending the educational function of television in South Africa.

Before pursuing that particular point, however, I should like to state that I support wholeheartedly the comments made by the hon. gentlemen on the Opposition side in regard to the political content of SABC TV programmes. As I have said, I would welcome additional analysis presented by other members, but it is interesting to note that according to my analysis news and news reviews take up 10% of viewing time. In this connection we have heard incontrovertible evidence today indicating that the predominant amount of information given by news reviews reflects pro-Nationalist propaganda. It is interesting, on the other hand, to note that one-third of the electorate who voted in the 1977 election did not vote for Government policy, and it is encumbent upon the board of control of SABC TV, which is supposed to look after standards in South Africa, to also present different viewpoints regarding the solutions to the problems South Africa faces. I do not think it would detract at all from the promotion of NP policy if viewers were also given an opportunity to find out what alternative political solutions are available to them in this country. In fact, I think the political show on television in South Africa is really the peep-show of all occasions. It is a peep-show along the lines of “What the Butler saw”. The end result is as predictable as what the butler saw.

Coming back to the question of education, I should like to make an appeal to the individuals responsible to take a very definite stand on the use of this very powerful medium in the interests of education in South Africa. One thinks, for instance, of the very real possibility of teaching mathematics, languages and chemistry, although not by a professor who goes by a name similar to my own, but possibly by more enlightened people. I appeal to those concerned to use this very powerful medium to educate the people of South Africa. We have a massive captive audience who show a great deal of interest. I think this function, which so far the SABC does not seem to have fulfilled, is of paramount importance, particularly when it comes to the political issues in this country. I do not think the Nationalists should be ashamed of having their policies discussed openly on television. We would certainly welcome the opportunity to be challenged by the most virulent and aggressive NP spokesmen on television. [Interjections.] I think that SABC TV could stand being relatively independent of those people who, we know, are in charge of it today.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to me why the hon. member for Sandton moved this motion today with the support of other hon. members of the Opposition. After the last election they are very frustrated at the outcome. What is that outcome really due to? The poor performance of their leaders and their candidates on television was partly responsible for the outcome.

You should have given him more time!

The hon. member for Durban North and also the hon. member for Pinelands who is now making an interjection ought to be very grateful that they did not have more time on television, because then they would have fared even worse. [Interjections.]

We are being accused of political bias, but as the figures which the hon. member for De Aar quoted indicate, even the HNP, which did not even have representation in Parliament, received sufficient time on television. It sounds to me almost as if the HNP is the other arm of the PFP. It seems to me that the only thing that could save those two Opposition parties is “Redding Internasionaal”. [Interjections.] If “Haas Das” were to read the news this evening, I think he would say: “In the NP, summer everywhere; and as far as the PFP and the NRP are concerned, winter. ”

In his motion the hon. member for Sandton requests that an independent authority representative of all South Africans be instituted.

What do you have against that?

Surely the hon. member realizes that the majority in the House are members of the NP. As applies to all appointed bodies, the council concerned will necessarily represent the ideas of the majority in this House.

Oh, then it must be political, must it?

Does the hon. member for Sandton want to maintain that the envisaged board should represent the minority, the little PFP? That is what they want. What is really happening? They are realizing that their own newspapers are beginning to run them down and even to run down their leaders. They fared badly in the reports on the censure debate that were published. That is why they are now beginning to seek another news medium in which they can state their so-called policy. However, they must be careful because the more coverage they get, the worse they fare.

What difference must there be, according to the hon. member for Sandton, between the present board and the authority he envisages? The present board is comprised of Afrikaans- and English-speaking representatives, people of high integrity who have exercised outstanding control for many years. It is being maintained—as hon. members opposite did again this morning—that Ministers parade on television to such an extent, but surely they do not appear on television as representatives of the National Party; they appear there as leaders. They represent a department and must therefore make statements and deal with legislation as factual news. Commentary by way of statements and explanations is always furnished when such statements and explanations originate with people of authority or an acknowledged expert in that field. This does not apply to a Minister alone; it also applies when organizations have to put their standpoint or state their policy. Hon. members on that side of the House strongly objected to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs appearing twice on a television programme. Would those hon. members expect television films of their leaders—like the appearance of the hon. member for Houghton in Australia and America—to be broadcast on our television service as well? Those leaders would disappear if the people of South Africa were to see them in their true colours as revealed during their appearances abroad. Political reports are regarded as contentious and consequently, reports will only be presented if factually correct. Such reports must also emanate from a leader or a spokesman of that party. A comparison is never drawn between two political parties in a programme broadcast over the radio or television. No political arguments are permitted in radio or television programmes.

Hon. members complain about the fact that hon. Ministers and the NP receive so much coverage on radio and television. However, I want to ask those hon. members: What about the newspaper coverage given? They can go and look in any newspaper—including their own. Who receives the most coverage in them? The Ministers. Why? Because such a Minister is a spokesman. Even their own leader and their own representatives do not get as much coverage in their own newspapers as they would like. In other words, Mr. Speaker, they are not newsworthy.

When it comes to the presentation of news, it is the policy of the SABC that the news must be objective. In fact, it forms part of the code of the SABC that it is a function of the corporation to present factual and unprejudiced news and information on an international, national and regional basis. It is the policy of the SABC to be impartial. It is the policy of the corporation to present news and information in an efficient and impartial manner. Only that which has factual news value is presented. In the presentation of news, strict guide-lines, in accordance with which the news must be presented, are laid down by the SABC for its journalists. These guide-lines relate, inter alia, to the value which is fundamental to the South African way of life, namely freedom which does not amount to licence, a policy in regard to human relations which recognizes the reality of diversity, authority which is exercised in a responsible and appropriate fashion and, lastly, the right of all people to live in dignity.

Against this complex South African and world background, and in the midst of a diversity of political disputes, varying philosophies and disparate cultural aspirations, the SABC circumspectly carries on its policy of seeing to it that its presentations are acceptable to all the diverse groups and ensuring that the rightful interests of all are recognized and at the same time, performing its task for the sake of the welfare of South Africa. Those hon. members can speak if they want to, and quote what others have said. Clearly, however, the point at issue is what the voters and the public at large have to say. I should like to quote from The Star of 21 June 1977-

With that I wish to pay the highest tribute once again to SABC TV, particularly for the programme presented on Sunday evening with the aid of a satellite transmission from America. I therefore take pleasure in supporting the motion of the hon. member for Bloemfontein North.

Mr. Speaker, some of the previous speakers may be too young to be aware of the origin of the Broadcasting Corporation or the deep waters it has been in. One of the hon. members said that in the 42 years during which the Broadcasting Corporation had served South Africa, it had rendered outstanding service and practised objective reporting. [Interjections.] Do hon. members corroborate that statement?

You will not corroborate it.

When the hon. member for Bloemfontein North speaks in this vein, he seems to forget that 35 years ago, a debate and debates were conducted in this House similar to that which we are conducting here today.

Are you referring to Caesar now? [Interjections.]

The Government of the day, the UP Government, made the same mistakes with regard to bias and lack of objectivity as the Government is making today.

Did you agree with them?

The hon. member asks whether I agreed with what the UP Government said at that time. Of course I did not agree with it. In fact, I was one of the large number of people employed by the Broadcasting Corporation who lost their jobs

Is that so?

Yes. That hon. member is too young to know about it. We lost our jobs due to our protest at the deliberately pro-UP bias of the Broadcasting Service. [Interjections.] An attempt is now being made to associate my colleagues in this party with what happened 35 years ago. I am probably by far the oldest member of the House and I have an intimate knowledge of what occurred in the Broadcasting Corporation in those days.

You are bitter because you did not get your job back.

Hon. members can joke about it, but the matter is just as serious today as it was then.

Yes. We are also serious.

Due to the course adopted by the Broadcasting Corporation at the time, the Broadcasting Corporation lost its credibility as a mouthpiece of the State here and abroad.

The old UP policy was no longer credible.

Yes. That is so. I should like to put this to the hon. the Minister of National Education for his consideration: Are we not perhaps destroying the credibility of the State of South Africa—not intentionally—by means of one of its mouthpieces, the Broadcasting Corporation? Hon. members must bear in mind that Radio RSA addresses the entire world. Are we not perhaps using the Broadcasting Service in such a way that South Africa’s credibility among people abroad and also among people in this country could be prejudiced?

The Progs prejudice our credibility.

Let us forget party politics for the moment. The hon. the Minister of Plural Relations appealed to us to be positive in our approach and I am now attempting to do so. I am attempting to sketch the perspective of the past, the dangers of the present. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Bloemfontein North encountered another difficulty as well, not only as regards his misconception of history, but also as regards his quotation from the Sunday Tribune of 28 August 1977. By doing so he wanted to intimate that even the Progressive newspapers were saying that the SABC provided a wonderful service. My colleague, the hon. member for Hillbrow, replied to this argument by pointing out that one could not quote so one-sidedly and that a report to the opposite effect had appeared on 21 August 1977. Subsequently the hon. member for De Aar said that the hon. member for Hillbrow had associated himself—he used the word “associated” three times—with the criticism expressed in the article dated 21 August concerning the Government and the SABC. It was as clear as crystal that in quoting the article, the hon. member had had only one thing in mind. He wanted to prove that the aim of the Sunday Tribune was nothing more nor less than to publish on 28 August a report with a point of view different from that of 21 August. That is all the newspaper wanted to do.

It blows hot and cold.

The newspaper is not blowing hot and cold; it is doing what the SABC ought to do, namely, giving both sides of a disputable or disputed fact.

Hear, hear!

That is what we are dealing with.

Mr. Speaker, without wearying you with stories from the distant past—it is an old man’s weakness—I nevertheless want to put the following to you for consideration: Essentially, the SABC is modelled, administratively and as far as its policy is concerned, on the BBC—the British Broadcasting Corporation. It so happened that when a transfer had to take place from the African Broadcasting Company to the SABC it was an Englishman, Sir John Reith, Director-General of the BBC, who carried out the investigation and gave us a model in accordance with which we should establish our broadcasting corporation.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he is of the opinion that the BBC is an impartial news medium?

The reply to the hon. member’s question is very simple. We in South Africa may dispute the impartiality or otherwise of the BBC. That is quite in order and we are fully within our rights in doing so. However I am referring to the internal impartiality of the BBC. To elaborate on the question which the hon. member put to me, I want to ask: Do the hon. members know what the BBC has done in this regard? The BBC has a control board the members of which are respected people who are generally acknowledged in Britain—perhaps “generally” is an exaggeration, but acknowledged by the vast majority, in any event—to be an impartial board with regard to internal affairs.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he agrees with the contention that the majority of people within South Africa accept that the SABC is an impartial medium?

Under no circumstances do I accept that. [Interjections.] We could, by way of a market survey, put the following simple question to the public: Listener and/or viewer, are you of the opinion that the television service in October and November 1977 was politically impartial? [Interjections.] Hon. members will be amazed at the reply.

We would do well to do that; there is nothing to stop us doing so. The hon. the Minister of National Education can suggest this to one of the newspapers which carry out regular surveys of this nature. However, that is not all we must do. We must also carry out a survey to determine how impartial the television service is in the eyes of the other ethnic groups, namely the Coloureds, Indians and the Black people, in order to arrive at an overall figure. They are all listeners and viewers who pay licence fees. They are all people who maintain that service, a service which, apparently, is used largely for the benefit of the Government and its policy.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he agrees with the article in the Sunday Tribune of 21 August 1977 which read as follows—

Order! The hon. member must put a question.

Does the hon. member agree with the result of the survey carried out by the Sunday Tribune, namely …

Order! That is not a question; I cannot allow that as a question.

I want to reply to part of the question. I am of course not bound by anything said by the Sunday Tribune. I do not even know what authority they quote for these opinions.

It was a survey by the Sunday Tribune.

I do not know whose opinions were involved. However we must reach a compromise and ask all listeners and viewers throughout the country who pay licence fees, whether they are of the opinion that the service was impartial during the months of October and November. It is my impression that there has never been a time in the history of South Africa when so many bridges, hospitals, schools, odd institutions here and there and dams were opened by various dignitaries than in those same two months.

Can the hon. member please tell us …

Order! The hon. member must obtain permission to ask a question.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the question but I regret that I am unable to do so because I have very little time left. If the BBC can introduce additional methods to maintain impartiality and deal with complaints in a homogeneous country like Britain, then there is undoubtedly every reason and justification for the SABC to be able to do so in South Africa as well.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I just want to round off my speech by elaborating further on the motion introduced by my hon. colleague the hon. member for Sandton. When business was suspended I was saying that the SABC is essentially based on the model of the BBC. The whole construction, administration and the whole spirit is essentially based on the guidance furnished by Sir John Reich and the BBC. I was also saying that the BBC prides itself on enjoying a great deal of confidence within Britain as far as impartiality is concerned. As regards its foreign transmission one could exchange a few ideas some other time. But internally it enjoys the confidence of the vast majority of listeners and viewers. Nevertheless, a few years ago the BBC established a special body. Unfortunately the time at my disposal was insufficient to allow me to study the details of this body. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will find an opportunity to do so. The body which was established is called the Programmes Complaints Committee, and this committee is made up of a number of people generally regarded as impartial people.

There are no such people.

The hon. member states that there are no such people. To a certain extent, of course, he is right. The fact of the matter, however, is that this committee, to an even greater extent than the board of the BBC, enjoys the confidence of the British listening public. In the year 1975, the only year for which I have data, there were six instances of people who raised objections— only six out of an audience of millions. The BBC was acknowledged to be in the right in two out of these six cases. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member was interrupted a great deal during the first part of his speech and I should appreciate his being given a good hearing in the final few minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In four cases, involving a number of individual points of dispute, the listeners, the complainants, were acknowledged to be in the right. One of the proposals we want to submit to the hon. the Minister is that a similar public body, independent of the SABC, be established here to hear the complaints of SABC listeners and then give a verdict in favour of the SABC or in favour of the complainants. This would contribute a great deal towards restoring the public confidence, the credibility—which, to me, is of great importance—and the impartiality of this vast and important medium of communication in those instances where it may have suffered harm. That is the one possibility. The other possibility is that the Control Board of the SABC be so constituted as to make it clearly apparent that all large groups of people in South Africa—separate peoples, whatever one wants to call them—are represented thereon. You can imagine, Sir, what effect it would have on public opinion here and abroad if the hon. the Minister were to say that in future appointments to the Control Board there would be at least one Coloured, one Black man, one Indian and, if the hon. the Minister could find it in his heart to do so, one person representing the opposition as well.

What opposition?

The people who do not agree with the policy of the Government, wherever they may sit and whatever their names may be. That is the second possibility.

There is yet a third possibility. It is not contained in the motion, but could nevertheless be considered by the Minister. When the SABC was established there was a section in the Act—which was later expanded—stating that in compiling and broadcasting the programmes, due account should be taken of the cultural interests of English-speaking, Afrikaans-speaking and Bantu people.

That is still the case today.

Yes, but mention is only made of culture. Perhaps—and I submit this for the consideration of the hon. the Minister—that section could be expanded to make mention of or refer to party politics as well, to an impartial reflection of the party political situation.

Mr. Speaker, it is one of the most difficult things to obtain a definition of what impartiality really is. When one talks of radio and television—this holds good not only for South Africa, but for the whole world—it is indeed a case of so many men, so many minds. I am convinced that there is not another single organization in the Republic of South Africa receiving such sustained critical consideration from so many people every day as the SABC does with its radio and television services. Nor, to my knowledge, is there another organization in South Africa which, under such difficult circumstances, acquits itself of its task as splendidly as does the SABC with its radio and television services. [Interjections.] Do hon. members on the opposite side realize that at present, cumulatively speaking, more than 10 million people listen to and view the SABC’s radio and television programmes every day? I repeat—more than 10 million people. And every one of these 10 million listens and views with a critical mind. I have looked up some of the comments made with regard to television. I quote some of them here—

This is one view on television. Here is some more—

I can proceed in this way so as to indicate that there are many divergent views on television and on other SABC matters. The hon. member for Johannesburg North has done some delving into history. I suppose it will not be held against me for having done the same thing. I want to put it to the hon. member that when it comes to radio matters, I undoubtedly bow to his superior knowledge. I have in my hand here the book Vorster die Mens. Reference is also made here to the story of Mr. Justice Kowie Marais. It is said here that his story is an extremely gripping one. I quote—

This is Mr. Justice Kowie Marais—

Mr. Justice Kowie Marais continues—

I assume it was not a … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, this is the hon. member who was so scathing about the credibility of the SABC. [Interjections.] Just hear what he says—

I hope the hon. member saw to it that he again … [Interjections.] The story continues—

All I can say is this: It is genuinely true! [Interjections.] That the hon. member does know something of radios!

Now what is the inference?

I say nothing about that, except that the hon. member’s conscience will trouble him on that score. In reply to a question put by the hon. member for Pretoria Central, the hon. member said the following was his view of the matter: The public of South Africa accepted neither the credibility of our external service, nor the credibility of SABC TV. The position is, however, that we receive hundreds, thousands of letters every month—I am not exaggerating—expressing gratitude for the factual and unprejudiced information disseminated by the SABC and its television service. It is known that Radio South Africa is the main source of information of African ambassadors at the UN. We also know that the leaders of African States are regular listeners, because of the fact that their own radio services are strictly controlled.

The hon. member who was so scathing about the credibility of the SABC, merely indulged once again in his party’s old game in order to damage South Africa’s good name in the field of radio, which is held in such high repute, and to drag it through the mud in this House. And this we have from an hon. member whose own credibility is not above suspicion, as I have indicated. He nevertheless said scathing things about this, and that after he has only just become a member of the Opposition. Sir, you will have to pardon me but I have to express myself in harsh terms as it is absolutely unfair towards his fatherland for him to have done this. If the hon. member had taken a bit of trouble, he himself could have ascertained the facts which I have supplied, and it would not have been necessary for him to have talked the nonsense he did and to have harmed his country. It is not only the leaders of African States who make use of our services, but it is also a fact that the German service of the SABC has twice received the award from the DX-ers as being the best external service in German. This is the service of which the hon. members allege that it does not have the necessary credibility. The hon. members should rather examine themselves so as to ascertain to what extent they are truly loyal towards the Republic of South Africa. They may safely forget about the SABC; they should rather test their own loyalty towards South Africa. The SABC’s French service has also received honourable mention. The SABC is held in high regard abroad and in Africa, but here in South Africa, hon. members run it down as they have done today.

I think the transmitters should be guarded.

I also think so. The hon. member who has just sat down, talked about the BBC. He waxed lyrical about the BBC. In the handbook of the BBC one reads the following with reference to the matter we are discussing—

According to my information, the body to which the hon. member referred, does not work well in practice. We have a much better system. This is typical of the PFP: If anything is South African, it is bad and must be run down in favour of that of other countries …

Nonsense!

I am not talking nonsense; I am speaking the truth. This is what the BBC’s handbook says—

This is a sacred fact and everybody knows it. One of the hon. members has put it very aptly: If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not a newsmaker because he does not have it in him, the SABC is not a bunch of conjurers who can change him into a newsmaker. [Interjections.] The SABC cannot simply say, “Abracadabra”, and there we have a newsmaker in the person of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself must take the necessary steps. [Interjections.]

The SABC is providing the people in South Africa with an excellent service. That is also the view of the general public. I am thinking, for example, of Kallie Knoetze’s fight the other evening. Everybody enjoyed the broadcast of the fight very much. At the time of the general election, Jaap Marais appeared on the television screen, but within a few minutes he damaged his little party to such an extent that they suffered utter defeat. This is indeed a very important medium. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also appeared on the screen during the election. When they asked him, “Say you were to come into power”, he probably had the fright of his life. [Interjections.]

The fact is, however, that the hon. member was asked what would be the first thing he would do if he came into power. Do hon. members know what he said? He said he would have a party and invite Gatsha Buthelezi to that party. But he did not say whether it would be a cocktail party or a tea party! That action on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on television, did his party so much damage that his little party now looks as it does.

Notwithstanding that, the hon. member for Sandton comes forward with this motion today and asks that we view this matter the way they want us to view it. Let me tell hon. members now that we refuse to do so. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. The SABC strives to be totally impartial in respect of affairs in South Africa. The SABC is making an honest attempt to do so. The SABC is in all respects in favour of the development of the Republic of South Africa and of all its peoples. That is right, and that is how it should be. The SABC’s charter, in terms of its statute, is to give a balanced coverage of the interests of all the communities in the country, to ensure equal treatment in respect of education, information and recreation; to ensure the peaceful coexistence of the various population groups and to avoid insulting conduct, and to respect the laws of the land. This was laid down in legislation by this House of Assembly as the charter and duty of the SABC, and every year a report is presented to Parliament, and Parliament has to pronounce anew upon the SABC. The SABC’s past record is conclusive proof of the recognition which is given to the large variety of languages, cultures, traditions and views which we have in this country. Of those things, however, those hon. members know very little. The hon. member for Sandton made a speech this morning in which he made statements which I cannot describe as anything but unbridled trash and nonsense. He made the most irresponsible statements here he was capable of thinking up. What the hon. member did here this morning when he was ranting and raving about the SABC and the television service, was basically irresponsible. In the past, under the old United Party, it was perhaps necessary to attack the SABC, but those hon. members have not taken cognizance of the increasing extent to which the SABC and the television service are in the service of the people of the Republic of South Africa and are promoting the interests of South Africa today. In this regard the SABC has built up an excellent record. The ignorance of those members is evident from what has happened here today, and I am going to illustrate this. Of what I am going to say now, however, that hon. member knows as little as the man in the moon does. Had he known better, he would not have spoken so irresponsibly today.

In the performance of its task, the Board of the SABC allows itself to be guided by the interests of its listeners and those of the country, of South Africa as a whole. In order to be able to provide for the needs of this large variety of language and population groups, the SABC has made provision over the years for 19 radio services in 16 languages to serve the various ethnic and language groups in South Africa and South West Africa. Of that, however, that hon. member knows nothing. In any event, he did not say a single word about it. I shall indicate in a moment why I say that he knows nothing about the subject on which he has spoken. Because news dissemination is of great importance to the people concerned—perhaps of primary importance—the corporation broadcasts 36 news bulletins in English alone on seven internal radio services. If that hon. member listened to 36 bulletins every day, he would not be able to sit in this House. He does not know what is going on. Fifty-eight bulletins are broadcast in Afrikaans every day, and 70 in Xhosa. I am very sure he has never heard of this in his life! I do not even want to ask whether he has ever listened to a single one of them. But he comes here and kicks up a fuss and alleges that in this country so little is being done for the Black people in respect of radio services. There are 70 news services per day in Xhosa, and the same number in Zulu, in South Sotho, in North Sotho, in Tswana, in Venda, and also in Tsonga.

There are few nations in the world that are served so well with objective news as the nations of the Republic of South Africa are being served by the SABC. And this is admitted abroad. Abroad, there is high praise for and awards to the SABC. But in South Africa itself one finds a bunch of verkrampte moles who carry on the way the hon. members on the opposite side do, and who try to run South Africa down. I trust that this afternoon we shall see an end to this nonsense concerning the SABC and the television service and that hon. members on the opposite side will cease doing what they have been doing here today in such a slanted fashion. I have consulted some old debates and if ever there was an antiquarian party on earth, then it is the party on the opposite side. Being so antiquarian will still be its death. If the SABC were to do what they ask for, we would have nothing but cacophony and chaos in South Africa.

The sources from which the news broadcasts are compiled, are exactly the same for all the services. Consequently all the national groups are given the same news at the same time.

All NP propaganda.

I repeat: All the national groups are given the same news and this enables them to draw their own conclusions and to form their own opinions. That is the point.

It is all slanted.

The hon. members on the opposite side said today that the SABC and the television service never criticized the NP or the NP Government. That is true, of course, but have they never noticed that the SABC and the television service never criticize them either, and really, Sir, if ever there were people open to criticism, it is they. However, the SABC never criticizes them. The SABC never criticizes the Opposition.

They do not have to …

It is not their function. The SABC tries to provide South Africa with an information service and nothing else. The same approach applies to the television service. In the brief span of two years, the SABC has put into operation a bilingual channel on which there is a balanced presentation of programmes. It is its declared intention, furthermore, to provide a television service for other language groups as well, and this will come into operation as soon as is practicable.

If what the hon. members on the opposite side are saying here is true, and if they are in fact acting in accordance with the wishes of the people of South Africa, then surely I, as the responsible Minister, ought to receive letters of complaint about the SABC and its television service, not so? Sir, there is a special file in my office in which all complaints are filed. How many complaints about programmes of the SABC and television have I received between 25 July 1977 and yesterday?—exactly seven! As against that, we, and the SABC as well, receive numerous calls and letters of appreciation. Hon. members on this side of the House have quoted figures reflecting the true opinion of the public in respect of this matter, and that is that they have appreciation for what the SABC and television are doing in South Africa. In its issue of 21 August 1977, even the Sunday Tribute stated—

This was the understatement of the year if ever there was one. Even they admit that there is a growing realization among the people that they have here a medium which is honestly and sincerely trying to act in the interests of South Africa and all its people. Scientific opinions confirm the conclusion that the SABC has the reputation of maintaining a high standard of impartiality in South Africa. The 1820 Settlers National Monument Foundation has found on the basis of a random test that most English-speaking people are of the opinion that of all the media, the SABC offers the most reliable and unbiased reporting on politics in South Africa.

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

My time is very limited. If possible, I shall try to answer every question asked by the hon. member. 42% of the people who were questioned by that Foundation, which, after all, is not a party-political organization, placed the SABC right at the top for objectivity as against 31% which placed the English-language Press first. That gives hon. members an idea of the objectivity of the judgment of the English-speaking people. A recent survey conducted by the department of journalism at Rhodes University, which, in the first place, is not a university of our Government in consequence of which one would have expected this university to support them, showed that most students regarded television as the most reliable medium for political news. Radio took second place and the printed word came only after that. These views are indirectly confirmed by the relative popularity of television news with television viewers. At present, according to projections based on scientific random tests, the television service has a daily audience of 1,5 million adult Whites for its main news bulletin. The SABC is continually collecting statistics in order to ascertain to what extent it is objective and to what extent it can offer a better service. More than 85% of those people whose opinions were obtained, subscribed to the view that television was giving its audience reliable information. I have figures here to indicate that during the election—about this, too, information is kept—39% of the number of items presented about the election, dealt with the points of view of the NP. As against that, 61% dealt with the points of view of the Opposition. 24% of this dealt with the points of view of the NRP, 24% dealt with the PFP, 5% with the SAP and 8% with the HNP. The newspapers published figures which did not tally with these, but this was because their surveys had drawn no distinction between Ministers who made speeches in the context of the election and Ministers who acted as spokesmen for the State or who acted in their official capacity in the private sector. These are the facts of the matter.

On the radio, the election campaign was reflected in a daily survey of five minutes as well as in a news bulletin. An analysis of the items which dealt with the election, shows that the different parties received equal treatment as regards the number of candidates which each party had in the field. In the election surveys for example …

If we had given them more coverage, they would have lost even further.

That is correct, Mr. Prime Minister. 51% of the reports in which views were expressed, reflected the views of the NP. The NP put up 51,5% of the candidates, and consequently I am of the opinion that this was a fair percentage. As against that, the views of the joint Opposition were reflected in 49% of the reports. The joint Opposition put up 48,5% of the candidates. I am known, after all, as a man who believes in fairness and justice and hon. members are very fond to make much of that. In this regard, too, I am prepared to do my duty towards the people of South Africa at all times—and that includes those hon. members—to the best of my ability. I have listened to the arguments of the hon. members on the opposite side and I have searched for a real grain of wheat among their arguments. I would have seized upon that and I would have come back and I would have said that I would investigate the matter and attend to it. But it is pitiful to see how those hon. members put themselves to shame today. They have done more, however. They have also put that country to shame, and I trust that we have now heard the last of this type of nonsensical talk. Let them rather get their own house in order. Let them get the leaders who are newsworthy. We cannot formulate a policy for them. In fact, I think they are too inefficient to formulate a policy for themselves. I say to them now: If they are waiting for the day when SABC TV—as long as I am the Minister—will have to convey their bad case to the public and to the voters of South Africa, then they will have to wait until the cows come home or until the tortoises have grown feathers. They must get their own house in order and stop talking such nonsense in a dignified chamber such as this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move—

If one wants to assess the importance of agricultural research in South Africa, it will probably also be important to take note of the growth and development of agriculture over the past ten years. Firstly, I want to discuss the physical growth of agricultural production over the past ten years. If the season 1958-’59 to 1960-’61 is taken as base year, the physical volume of agricultural production over the past ten years has increased to 179 points. In the case of grain products like maize, the production has almost doubled, i.e. from 116 points to 223 points. In view of the physical growth in agricultural production in South Africa, agriculture has also begun to play a very important role in the economy of South Africa. Agriculture is responsible for approximately R1 000 million in exports. It is a valuable earner of foreign currency for South Africa. However, what is important in this regard, is the fact that the imported input necessary to achieve the production, amounts to only R103 million, as far as agriculture is concerned. This represents approximately 2% of South Africa’s total imports. In this way, agriculture has earned this valuable currency.

Economists are sometimes inclined to assess the relative importance of agriculture in South Africa on its contributions towards the gross domestic product, i.e. 7,7%. It is sometimes forgotten that agriculture provides employment to approximately 29% of the economically active people in South Africa. This demonstrates the importance of agriculture and its development here in South Africa.

As a result of research, we have achieved a very sound position in agriculture over the past decade. The most important body in this regard is the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, which is involved in agricultural research. This department has organized itself into 11 research institutes. The department has adopted the basic policy of optimum utilization of resources. This implies, firstly, that we are dealing with extremely scarce agricultural resources. This fact was admitted by the Government and by a Cabinet decision a few years ago when the then Minister of Planning, Mr. Loots, announced this on 3 April 1975. During a conference on habitat he said the following concerning agricultural land in South Africa—

This proves that land is an extremely limited agricultural resource in South Africa. Furthermore, the policy of optimum utilization of resources also implies that horizontal expansion of production systems in agriculture is something of the past. Indeed, it is owing to limited resources that agricultural development in South Africa can only carry on as long as technological development is possible. However, this also implies that these resources have to be protected very carefully, and one could say that all forms of agricultural production that are detrimental to these resources are a crime against South Africa.

Furthermore, it also implies that the production system in South Africa must be economical. There must be scientifically and economically acceptable systems of farming. The Department of Agricultural Economy and Marketing must also play a part here because economic and marketing research form an integral part of the policy of optimum utilization of the soil. Later on, speakers on this side of the House will go into this matter further.

If optimum utilization of the soil is the inexorable demand of South African agriculture, research must enjoy the highest possible priority when it comes to the provision of funds, training, manpower, etc. The State must take the lead in this regard, notably by making sufficient funds available for basic research. It is an expensive process to undertake basic research and the provision of these funds will, I think, always remain the task of the State. At the moment the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has 11 research institutes. These institutes provide information to the various agricultural sectors and stimulate further applied research. There must, of course, be the necessary extension in this regard so that the eventual results can be applied in practice on farms. I want to make the statement that the 11 research institutes form the nucleus of agricultural research in South Africa. I think that insufficient funds and shortages of scientists at these institutions will shake the agricultural industry to its foundations.

It is also necessary to say something about agricultural research in so far as it concerns the private sector. Applied research in particular has undergone rapid development in recent times, together with the accompanying extension and promotion projects which are involved. Thanks to the policy of the present hon. Minister of Agriculture, agricultural cooperatives in particular have been liaising effectively with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in recent times. Coordinating bodies have been formed, and on this basis, the extension and research divisions of agricultural co-operatives supplement the activities of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. The socio economic link between an agricultural co-operative and a farmer is extremely important as far as extension is concerned. The co-operatives work with all the production facets of the farmer and the co-operative is therefore an ideal medium through which research and guidance services can filter through to agricultural practice. It is a natural development that the heavier the demands made on scientific farming systems, the more prominently will the agricultural co-operatives have to enter the sphere of extension. The more intensive farming systems become, the more essential individual extension becomes, and the co-operatives are particularly well suited to that role. However, this process is going to mean that co-operatives will have to do promotion work themselves. They will have to tackle projects themselves, and set up experimental farms on which to do this work. This will, of course, mean expenditure for the agricultural co-operatives. At the moment, the agricultural co-operatives are subject to income tax and it is probably necessary on this occasion for me to request the authorities concerned to allow the expenditure which the co-operatives incur in carrying out these experiments, to be classed as deductible expenditure on their income tax return. I think this is a reasonable request, especially if this type of work is assessed by a body which is in fact able to do so, for example the CSIR, which can give attention to this work and quite probably issue the necessary certificate before an agricultural cooperative could receive a tax concession of this kind. If the agricultural co-operatives have the right to obtain tax concessions for research work, private industry would be justified in asking for certain concessions for research work in this regard. This is very important. A great deal of research is being done in South Africa in the process of product development.

I have in mind in particular the research carried out into the production of crop protection products. There is legislation which lays down that these products must be effective and that they are not dangerous for human use. Intensive tests and work is done in this regard before these products can ultimately be registered. The costs involved are high. These costs must eventually be recovered from the consumer. Tax concessions in this regard could play an important role and have a further stimulating effect on research in agriculture.

I should like to discuss a third matter. As far as research is concerned, I must also refer to the important role which the agricultural faculties of our universities play in this regard. It is they that have to provide the manpower for research in South Africa. Perhaps too little is said about the role which our agricultural faculties play in their contribution to this great task. I want to express the hope that the separation of the agricultural faculties from the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has not weakened the link between them in the sense that the departments and the university are drifting away from one another. Since faculties now have more autonomy as far as the expenditure of funds is concerned, opportunities can now be created for them to liaise more intensively with all sectors of the agricultural industry, i.e. agricultural co-operatives, etc. I could refer to many examples in this regard. In this way, funds can flow from the agricultural sector to our universities, to enable them to tackle certain agricultural projects for the sake of training. Our research policy must, inter alia, be geared to produce the greatest degree of liaison and co-ordination among the three bodies, i.e. the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, the private sector and the agricultural faculties of our universities. I think this is of the utmost importance.

However, I could not do justice to this motion if I did not say something about the farmers in South Africa. I think South Africa has the best farmers in the world, precisely because they have to manage with extremely limited agricultural resources. Our farmers must be particularly receptive to better scientific farming systems. In other words, the training of our farmers for this purpose is becoming more and more important. We are grateful to hear that some of our universities have specialized in offering practical farming courses such as B.Agric., the better to equip prospective farmers for the profession they must ultimately follow. I think the greatest challenge which our farmers in South Africa are faced with, is to be able to farm economically under these circumstances. The success of research results in agriculture, how economical they are, is measured on the farm of the practical farmer. That is why a weakening in research will result in farms not being utilized properly. The yield will drop. The yield per unit of land, the yield per animal unit and I can even say yield per litre of fuel, the yield per kg of fertilizer, are all factors in which agricultural research can play a role and if the yield per unit drops, the price of food is eventually going to increase in South Africa. This is the greatest challenge which the farmer in South Africa is faced with at this time.

In conclusion, I should also just like to point out the influence of agricultural research on Africa and Southern Africa. To a certain degree this matter also has a political side. In recent times, there has been a great deal of speculation about food as a strategic resource, especially if the starving masses of the developing countries in Africa are taken into account. Although they are worse off as far as agriculture is concerned, their political power and their say in the international world is definitely not to be despised. Without becoming speculative about our own strategic position as far as the provision of food is concerned, it is nevertheless enlightening to compare South Africa’s position with that of Africa. South Africa has only 5,8% of the total population of this continent, but look at our production.

In this regard I refer to figures released in 1974 by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN. 18,8% of the wheat of the entire continent is produced in South Africa; 20,2% of the potatoes, 32,4% of the sugar cane, 20,9% of the red meat and 41,4% of the maize. These figures demonstrate more than anything else the strategic position of South Africa in this continent. That is not all. They demonstrate the agricultural achievement which is chiefly due to research. However, it is not South Africa’s policy to use its strength in the agricultural sphere as a sort of means whereby to practise extortion on African countries. The statement which our present Minister of Agriculture made on 10 January 1977, during the 1977 Agricultural Conference, is very clear on this matter. He said that South Africa offers its research results to those who want to co-operate with her. It was an invitation to the African States. Africa is no longer looking for weapons; they have enough of them; they have too many of them. They are looking for food. The hungry masses want food. They do not want weapons. Weapons only drive out investment and further development. At some time or another the African leaders will realize that weapons are not the solution to their problem. Some of them have already said as much in that regard. I think Kenneth Kaunda has said on one occasion that they must stop letting the elephants fight because they just trample the grass flat. More than 70% of the peoples of Africa are economically active in agriculture. In other words, the beginning of their economic development lies in agriculture and in agriculture alone. I believe the day will dawn when Africa will have to look to South Africa for the solution to its food problems. Agricultural research has become of strategic value to South Africa. For this purpose, too, agricultural research must be given the highest possible priority, not only in the interests of agriculture, but also in the interests of South Africa as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot in what the hon. member for Bethal said with which I can identify completely. There are, however, two aspects which I want to refer to in the course of my speech, aspects on which I am perhaps somewhat uncertain whether I can agree with him or not and whether he is on the right track or not. I believe, however, that this motion cannot be meaningfully discussed without bearing in mind the short-term as well as the long-term economic situation in the agricultural industry. Whatever suggestions we may offer, we must bear in mind that costs and other financial considerations must be taken into account. As was mentioned in the debate last Friday, the past year was a good one as far as agricultural production was concerned. With regard to the volume of production, 1977 was also a better year than 1976. The value of production increased to R3 506,6 million.

In the third place there was also an improvement in the net income of the farmer. In my opinion, however, there remains one major problem in the agriculture sector, and that is the return before tax which is still less than 7%, based on the estimated total investment in agriculture, which is R18 500 million. This to me is the biggest single problem in the industry. In view of the fact that the industry needs capital, which is obtained at high interest rates, the situation becomes all the more alarming. Therefore, we on this side of the House welcome the opportunity to discuss this motion and we gladly participate in this discussion.

In the motion it is assumed that the agricultural resources of our country are limited and that the food requirements of Africa are rapidly increasing. Therefore the House is requested to take note of the special importance of research in agriculture.

The hon. member for Bethal pointed out the important role of agriculture in our exports. He referred to the importance of the employment of people in the agricultural sector. He also pointed out that it was necessary to bring about bigger yields per hectare unit and he asked for adequate funds for the necessary research. We on this side of the House agree with that.

However, when the hon. member requests that agricultural co-operatives, on the basis of research, should enjoy certain tax concessions, I disagree with the hon. member to a certain extent. A great deal of agricultural research is also done by the private sector. I believe however that the reason for such research is to a large extent, if not entirely, to bring about increased sales of the product of a particular company and I can find no fault with that, because it is correct. Whether tax concessions should really be granted to such organizations and therefore to agricultural cooperatives as well, is a question about which, as I have said, I have certain doubts.

In the light of the low return on investment in agriculture, I feel that research should be aimed in the first place at the reduction of production costs per unit by the application of better methods or by making bigger yields possible without any increase in expenditure which is beyond the farmer’s control. I believe the farmer receives excellent assistance in this respect from the officials of the Department of Agricultural and Technical Services. If I were to judge, with my limited experience, I would have to say that these officials are extremely helpful, regardless of whether the problem is irrigation, soil analysis, or whatever. I cannot praise them enough.

The hon. member for Paarl—he is not present this afternoon—pointed out last Friday that his milk production per cow was increased by a good percentage. Although it was not stated, I believe that the men of the department even had a finger in that pie.

In my opinion the primary aim of the extention officers is firstly to ensure that agricultural resources are not overtaxed, and secondly to formulate adapted agricultural methods and customs within homogeneous production areas. They must then pass on such information as speedily as possible to the farmer and do it in such a manner that the greatest number of farmers can make use of it. Apart from that we also have quite a number of experimental farms where the farmer is welcome to watch and learn. Unfortunately it has been found that only a small percentage of our farmers actually make use of all the facilities at our disposal. It is estimated that it is usually the top farmers, the best farmers, which make use of those facilities. It is said that only about 16% of our farmers actually make use of the assistance available to us. I quote—

It is perhaps a pity that this is the case.

It has been my experience and it has come to my knowledge that our farmers are well catered for in the agricultural technical sphere.

It will probably be true to say that as far as all the agricultural products in South Africa are concerned, there is a measure of overproduction. Here and there one would find an exception, therefore my second area of research would be this particular aspect. I should like to see research being done which would seek to give the farmer an indication of the consumption potential of a particular product. I should like to tell the hon. Minister that we have here an extremely difficult field—I am aware of this—but in my opinion answers to the following questions should be given in advance for every agricultural product, or we should at least try to do so. The questions to be asked are the following: How big a market is there for a particular product? Where is that market? How should the product be packed and processed to be readily acceptable to a specific market? What is the consumer prepared to pay for that particular product?

I do not think any manufacturer would produce something today without having investigated the market conditions, without knowing how big a market there is for that product, and how much the consumer or user will be prepared to pay for it. That should be the case with the farmer as well. Just as in the industrial sector, costing should also be done in the agricultural sector. I believe it is being done, but I am not sure whether it is being done adequately, and that is in my opinion the third area where research is needed. Although production costing is usually done with regard to several agricultural products as such, I am not sure whether individual farmers themselves do their own costing on their farms to ensure that they produce what the market can pay for. I therefore ask the hon. Minister to deal specifically with this sub-category—in his reply perhaps—because I feel—and I am speaking as a farmer—that much can be done to help the farmer do his own costing.

Finally, I should just like to mention that there is specific reference in the motion to the food requirements of Africa in particular. The hon. member for Bethal therefore foresees that we shall supply and sell agricultural products to our neighbouring States in the long term, and on a regular basis. It is perhaps in this respect that I have the greatest problem with regard to the motion. The fact of the matter is that we are at the moment not doing business with any of the really important African countries—important in the sense that they are big consumers—on a regular basis. I am not trying to drag politics into this agriculture debate. That is not my aim. I believe however that hon. members on both sides of the House will agree that if the agricultural sector is to remain sound in the long term, it must be able to count on those markets on a long-term basis and it is therefore necessary that we must reach agreement in Africa, at least as far as trade negotiations are concerned. Therefore I believe that fourthly, research should be done to determine in which manner markets in Africa can be developed and maintained on a regular basis. Perhaps the hon. Minister can in this regard succeed where others have failed. I believe we can only trade with African countries on an ongoing basis if our relations with those countries are normalized, and that will only be possible after we have rectified our internal relations with our own people. I am afraid the implementation of the policy of the hon. members on the other side makes this normalization impossible, and that unless we rectify the internal situation, we will not be able to rectify our external position, and unless we can rectify that, I foresee hard times ahead for the agricultural sector.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Agriculture is a practical man. The agricultural sector needs greater and more stable markets. I believe that research in the fourth instance that I referred to, will show that the quicker we move in the direction of an open society within South Africa, the more assured and stable our African markets will be.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I cannot compliment the hon. member for Wynberg, as I did last Friday, or say that I have no quarrel with him. The few remarks with which he concluded were directed at the hon. the Minister. They concerned markets in Africa. Allow me just to say that as far as I am concerned, his viewpoint in this connection is naïve in the extreme. I am convinced that if that is really his view, he has been indoctrinated and brainwashed by those people to a serious degree. I am sorry, but I am quite unable to agree with him in that regard. It is certainly the case that far more is involved than the petty domestic disputes we have with the PFP.

However, I want to come back to what he said earlier on. He complained about the return on capital invested in agriculture. In this regard I am in full agreement with him. Unfortunately this has always been the case. Since he has come up with this complaint I hope that he will stick to his guns and, together with his friends around him, assist us in this regard when price increases are under discussion. However, I am by no means convinced that his ideas are in line with those of his colleagues. I also agree with him entirely, and with the hon. member for Bethal as well, that more money must be voted for research. This is imperative, and that is why it is a pleasure for me, too, to support this motion. However he expressed doubt as to the tax rebate for co-operatives. We are fully aware that this is a sensitive point between the private trade and the co-operative trade, if I may put it that way. I wonder whether we do not perhaps see matters a little differently. I regard the co-operative trade as a part of the private sector and not, as some people do, as a semi-State institution. We must clearly understand that the co-operative trade definitely forms part of the private sector. However, this was said as a suggestion, and if this suggestion is accepted by the Minister of Finance, I hope that the hon. member, like me, will be grateful to the hon. member for Bethal for having come up with this idea.

As far as the hon. member’s four questions are concerned, I fear that they constitute a reflection on our farmers. I definitely think so.

Oh, no!

What does that hon. member know about farming? Surely he knows nothing about it. His interjections here are most uncalled-for. Let him first consult his colleagues behind him. He might get some good advice. I repeat: I think that with his four questions the hon. member has to a certain extent cast aspersions on our farmers. I shall say why. The hon. the Minister and I were present at the congress of the Agricultural Economic Association of South Africa held at Stellenbosch a fortnight ago. 240 congress goers were present, including 80 farmers. I think that is a compliment, and I really feel that if this is the direction our farmers are moving in and if their interest is increasing to this extent, this question is a little far-fetched as far as our farmers are concerned and we should handle it with care.

Let me come back to the motion. In lean times such as those we, together with the rest of the world, are experiencing at present in the economic sphere, it is those who select their priorities correctly who succeed in keeping drought at bay and averting a disaster. Willy-nilly we are experiencing a period in which the State must do everything—and it is, in fact, doing everything—to limit its expenditure. We expect that of the State. Moreover, the economy of the country must adapt itself to a world-wide disruption brought about by the energy crisis. Furthermore additional pressure is being exerted on our economy because we must strive for military preparedness. The sum total of these factors is that the drain on our country’s resources is far greater than normal. Actually, the budget of the departments which finance research are directly at stake when steps to promote thrift are taken. It is precisely because those who have to decide are not always able to see agriculture as a primary source of food, of raw materials for our industries and of so major a part of our exports, that we regard the motion of the hon. member for Bethal, which is at present under discussion, as vital and timely. I can recall occasions when states in Africa proposed, when their budgets would not balance, that the budget in regard to health and education should be pruned. In my opinion, the heavy demands being made on agriculture—to feed the nation—deserve to be given the highest priority and at the very least should not occupy a position inferior to that of other key services such as health and education. That is why it is essential that funds be found for research so that efficient, and more efficient, production may be ensured. In present times, sustained optimum agricultural production is more important than ever.

It is so important that I do not hesitate to equate it with our effort to be militarily prepared. In the field of strategy we simply cannot afford to have a food shortage in this country. In this country—in fact, in any country—a shortage of food can cause chaos. Hunger knows no reason, nor does it know patriotism or political loyalty. Food prices which become too high fall in the same category as food shortages. If the food is there but the people lack the money to buy it because they cannot afford it, it can have precisely the same effect. The result is that these people starve and lose their healthy point of view. Under a food-for-peace scheme we can supply food to our hungry neighbours and this can cause just as much goodwill as an aeroplane, a cannon or other defence equipment.

Agriculture has done its bit to produce cheap food in this country. During the discussion of the motion before the House last week, we spelled this out very clearly. In that debate it became evident how cheap South African food is as against that in comparable countries. The enormous escalation of production costs can be absorbed by the farmer and has in fact been absorbed by him in the past. However, this was only possible because a higher production per unit had been achieved and this, in turn, is the result of research, for example, research into better seed, better planting material and even better breeds of animal. The contribution of our researchers in this regard is so great that we would need far more time if we were to discuss it here item for item. Our researchers deserve recognition and reward for the work they are doing. Too much is taken for granted in this country, particularly as far as the agricultural researchers are concerned.

I should like to refer briefly to a few of their achievements. The hon. member for Bethal referred to various institutes and I just want to add that in each of those institutes, work has been done which has won international renown. In this regard I call to mind the example of Onderstepoort, an institute which has in the past won South Africa a great deal of renown. This in itself is sufficient reason for us to spend far more money on research. If one considers the quantity of absolutely vital vaccines leaving the country, not for foreign destinations but for our neighbouring States, I feel that by doing so we have already bought much friendship and much goodwill. The hon. member for Wynberg has also referred to this. Besides the 11 institutes mentioned by the hon. member for Bethal, I also have in mind the Division of Agricultural Engineering. I have in mind, too, the eight regions, all of which have carried research work in the past and are still doing so. It would take a great deal of time to inform the House of all the achievements of those institutes. To me as a cattle breeder it is important—and I think the people who really take an interest in this and who say that meat is expensive today, can take cognizance of this with pride—that meat would have been far more expensive if our researchers had not succeeded in developing the Bonsmara and Dreakensberger breeds. If they had not developed the Dormer, Dorper and Döhne sheep breeds, the price of mutton would have been far higher. As far as foodstuffs such as vegetable and fruit are concerned, there is a whole series of varieties that have been bred and developed by our researchers. Some of the species of fruit that occur in the Western Province, and many of our grape cultivars, are new varieties today that did not exist at all 25 years ago. In my opinion we have much to be thankful for and every reason to be proud of what our researchers have achieved. But we cannot leave it at that. They must carry on with the good work, and the only way in which they can do so is for the necessary funds to be made available. It is important for everyone in the country that this research be carried out so that the benefit will eventually be enjoyed by the consumer. That is why I have no hesitation in supporting the motion of the hon. member for Bethal and I appeal to the Cabinet, when they decide on the funds to be voted for the various departments, to give agriculture very careful consideration.

I should like to make a brief survey of the factual situation. When our funds are insufficient, savings may be effected by maximum co-ordination. The hon. member for Bethal also referred to this. There are a number of institutes carrying out research today, and maximum co-ordination ought to be our watchword at the moment. Overlapping and duplication must be guarded against with care and it is for the Department of Agriculture, the heads of our institutes and our university faculties to ensure this. The bodies outside of the agricultural faculties which play a part in agricultural research must do their bit in this regard as well. We must make an appeal to these people to make the best of the little money that is available. Due to the financial crisis we have been experiencing over the past three years, the increase in funds allocated to research has been a mere 5%. The high rate of inflation of between 11% and 12% has limited growth and the scarcity of workers—which is a vital factor—has further contributed to this. We are experiencing a shortage of workers in certain disciplines in particular and I want to mention them here: Soil science; plant physiology; bio-chemistry; virology and plant improvement. As a result, agricultural research is definitely not keeping pace with the demands which it is being set nowadays. Exceptionally heavy demands are being made on agricultural scientists in the Republic, because natural resources are scarce and because accelerated and increased production in the future will to a large extent have to take place on the vertical level. In order to achieve this aim, agricultural research must be not only accelerated, but also very much intensified, and there is no getting around the fact that this costs a great deal more money. The time when we could solve agricultural problems empirically is past as far as I am concerned.

I wish to argue that in order to deal with this situation, the following steps be given positive consideration: Firstly, plans must be devised to obtain the scarce workers in some way. These workers hold the key to the success of agricultural research and they are becoming more and more unobtainable. Secondly, I want to argue that prospective agricultural scientists receive increased financial support for postgraduate study by, for example, increasing their study bursaries which at present amount to approximately R1 000 per annum, to R1 800 per annum. I feel that this is vital because we must get hold of these key staff. Thirdly, I want to suggest that the acquisition of higher and postgraduate qualifications must be encouraged and facilitated to a greater extent. It is clear that this can only be done if we have funds available. Fourthly, I feel that agricultural scientists must be placed at the same level as veterinarians and engineers, for example, and that salaries be adjusted accordingly. As far as I am concerned, this adjustment is imperative, particularly in one discipline, i.e. that of plant improvement. Fifthly, I want to suggest that financial allocations for-agricultural research be increased annually by a percentage higher than the rate of inflation. It will not be sufficient for the funds to remain unchanged. Finally, it is important to me that we should consider making provision in the budget for refined apparatus which could conserve manpower and make it possible to carry out advanced research. Special provision must be made for this.

I want to bring it very forcibly to the attention of the House that money alone, a bigger budget, is not going to help. It is also necessary to utilize the available funds in such a way that we can obtain the manpower, and it will therefore demand a high degree of ingenuity to compile the budget neatly and correctly.

However, it is not only in the field of agricultural technical services that research is being carried out. Research is also being carried out in the sphere of agricultural economics. It is vital, particularly in view of the heavy demands being made on the farmer nowadays, that a great deal more be done in this field as well. In any sphere, but particularly in a dynamic industry like agriculture, we must at all times be assured of a sound balance between technical and economic research.

Until recently, agricultural research in South Africa concentrated for the most part on the technical aspects of the agricultural industry, but in recent years there has been a great deal of emphasis on marketing research. This development has made more purposeful research essential, research not only in respect of production and economic matters, but also in respect of all the various phases of the marketing process of all agricultural products, on both the local and the overseas market. The days when we produced not for the markets, but for supply, are gone for good. Just as in the case of the production process in agriculture, the marketing of agricultural products has become an industry, and we are compelled to apply proven business principles. Various factors such as the present slack economic conditions and the fact that the consumer is becoming more and more discriminating with regard to prices and quality place still more emphasis on the need for and urgency of agricultural economic research. The Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the agricultural control boards concerned are fully aware of the pressing need for agricultural research. The hon. member for Bethal, too, has drawn our attention to this.

In reply to the speech by the hon. member for Wynberg, I want to say that as far as production, too, is concerned, an effort has been made to ensure the most economic production, inter alia, by calculating the cost of production of the most important grain products, by trade surveys, revenue and cost budgets, the mail-in record system and the posting of results to farmers. In the field of marketing, efforts are made to further the efficiency of the marketing process by maintaining statistical series on the volume, value and marketing of agricultural products, projections of the production and consumption thereof, surface area and crop estimates, structural studies and investigations into distribution canals and margins. Various agricultural control boards also undertake marketing research with a view to market promotion. It must be conceded that a great deal can and must still be done in the field of agricultural economic research, but just as in the other sectors of the economy, adequate funds and manpower are limiting factors. The demands made on both our technical and our economic scientists are increasing very rapidly and it is a healthy sign that our farmers are keeping abreast. We simply must continue to keep abreast because this is in everyone’s interests: The farmer’s, the consumer’s and our country’s.

I sincerely believe that this motion introduced here by the hon. member for Bethal will in fact succeed in illustrating, emphasizing and promoting this course of action.

Mr. Speaker, in the motion introduced by the hon. member for Bethal, the emphasis and motivation are to be found in the words: “…in view of the limited agricultural resources and the ever-increasing food requirements in Africa in particular …” In other words, the scope of the motion is far wider than merely the problems and the situation here in South Africa. We regard the motion as having a far wider scope because reference is also made therein to the situation in Africa as such. As regards the situation in Africa and the fact that South Africa is the most developed country on the continent of Africa, we should like to hear from the member who introduced the motion and from other hon. members on that side of the House what their plans are and what they envisage doing with regard to our relations with Africa in the agricultural sphere, what plans are being made to furnish guidance, offer support and provide assistance to Africa, and to what extent success has already been achieved in bringing about cooperation with African states on this basis. We have already said that we believe that there is an opportunity for South Africa to establish sound relations with African states at the agricultural level and that the hon. the Minister could quite possibly make a breakthrough in this field, where the politicians have failed. We mean this quite sincerely. This is not politics. South Africa can play a vital role on the continent of Africa as regards the production of food on a continent in which there are major shortages of food.

I also found that the true dimensions of the problem, which is being experienced not only in South Africa, but also in Africa and in the world as a whole, are not being emphasized here forcefully and dramatically enough. I just want to refer to a few statistics which may emphasize the issue more dramatically and which will fully illustrate the problem so that we may see it as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, while we are speaking about food shortages in Parliament today in a country in which the majority of the population does not go hungry—there are in fact people who do not have sufficient food, but the majority of the South African population does not suffer from famine—it is a fact that in the world as a whole, 500 million people suffer from famine to a serious degree. Certain predictions are being made. Taking into account the rapid increase in the world’s population and the problems being experienced with regard to the production of food, it is being predicted that by the year 2000, 1 000 million people will die as a result of food shortages. This underlines the major disaster which the world has to face in regard to the supply of food to the rapidly growing population of the world. It is unfortunately the case that many countries—particularly developing countries, the countries of the Third World and the countries of Africa— refuse point blank to admit that the population increase has a direct effect on food shortages. They refuse to admit this and they refuse to do anything about it. And this is one of the basic aspects of our problem.

If one looks at the increase in the world’s population one will see that there were 2 000 million people in the world in 1930. In 1960 there were 3 000 million, in 1976 4 000 million and by the year 2000 there will be 6 500 million people. This means that in the last 70 years of the twentieth century, the population of the world will increase more than threefold, namely from 2 000 million to 6 500 million. Whereas in 1976, 70% of the world’s population lived in the under-developed or developing countries, by the year 2000, 77,6% of that population will be in the developing countries. What makes the problem even more difficult is the fact that 66% of the world’s population produces a mere 44% of the world’s food. When one looks at the protein foods, meat, milk and eggs, the foods which are vital to the health and normal physical and mental development of man, one finds that in the developing countries, which have 66% of the world’s population, only 22% of the world’s meat, eggs and milk are produced. That is where the problem lies, namely that in the developing countries, due to the shortage of protein foodstuffs, one finds that the normal physical and mental development of those people is seriously affected due to those shortages.

At this moment the world as a whole has one month’s supply of grain, and it is a fact that the world’s per capita production of grain has dropped since 1973, although there are countries in which the production of grain has increased tremendously. If one sets it against the population of the world as a whole, one finds that it has dropped since 1973. The position is that Asia and Europe find themselves in the position of having to import approximately 100 million tons of grain from America annually. They are therefore entirely dependent on the so-called bread basket from North America to meet their grain needs. This is a situation which is assuming serious proportions in the world. However, if one takes note of the situation on the continent of Africa—and presumably that is one of the aims of this motion—and at what South Africa, as the leading and most developed country in the technological and other spheres, can do in order to play a role and make a contribution to the solution of the problems of our continent. I have said that 500 million people are suffering from famine in the world. While we are discussing this motion, there are between 40 and 50 million people in Africa in the grip of famine. Hon. members will recall that in 1975, more than 100 000 people died of starvation in Ethiopia alone. Statistical facts tell us that what is happening in Africa is not only serious, but frightening. The average increase in the population of African countries exceeds 2% per annum, but as far as the production of food is concerned there is an average drop per capita of more than 2% per annum.

In some African countries the figure per capita is even 7% per annum. In other words, this shows us that the continent of Africa and all its peoples is certainly heading for disaster. While the population increase continues unchecked, and while it appears that the Governments of the countries concerned are either incapable or unwilling to find a solution to the problem, there is a continuing drop in the production per capita of food, and this is causing the physical and mental development of the peoples in question to be seriously harmed. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, in a report dating as far back as 1975, mentioned that 40 of the 48 countries in Africa—excluding South Africa and Rhodesia, of course—do not produce sufficient food to provide for their own populations. On the entire continent of Africa, South Africa is virtually the only country able to produce sufficient food to enable it to export food as well. However, we cannot be complacent. Our present achievements ought not to reassure us. If we take note of the situation in South Africa and use the criterion that approximately 4 ha of land is used to feed one member of the population, we note that whereas there was 0,75 ha of land for every member of the population of South Africa in 1973, by the year 2000—that is in 20 years time—the situation will have deteriorated to such an extent that by that time we shall only have 0,32 ha of land per member of the population of South Africa. Even here in South Africa, the only country which has thus far maintained a sound basis of food production for its own population, we shall shortly be saddled with major problems with regard to the supply of food for the rapidly growing population of our country.

Hon. members realize that South Africa has one of the fastest growing populations in the world. We must bear in mind that our agricultural resources—and our primary resources is of course our land—are not increasing. The surface area of our country is not increasing. It remains constant. In fact, to put it more accurately, it is in fact dwindling and I shall also say something in this regard in a moment or two.

Taking a closer look at South Africa we note that excluding the homelands, only one third of the surface area of our country has more than 500 mm of rain per annum. It is interesting to note that 70% of the surface area of the homelands has more than 500 mm of rain per annum. 3,3% of South Africa’s surface area falls into the category of agricultural land with a high production potential— this is something to which the hon. member for Bethal referred—whereas 33% of the land in the homelands can be regarded as land with a high production potential. Notwithstanding these percentages it remains true, despite the efforts made by the departments concerned to train homeland populations in agriculture, that the agricultural production of the homelands comprises only one sixth or one seventh of the production achieved in South Africa on land of the same quality. This shows, of course, that a great deal of work will still have to be done before the food production of the homelands can reach the same level as that in South Africa. There are inherent problems whose origin is to be found in the tribal customs and traditional conceptions of the people of the homelands. The task of breaking down those conceptions and introducing these people to modern agricultural methods must be tackled. There are tremendous problems to be bridged, but fortunately very good work has been done to date. Nevertheless there is still a great deal to be done. This is South Africa’s and the Government’s responsibility, not only towards the populations and the Governments of the homelands, because geographically the homelands form an integral part of South Africa and of Africa, but also in the interests of the territory as a whole, to ensure that everything in our power is done to ensure that the homelands develop their agricultural production capacity and place their utilization of land on a far sounder basis. We must see to it that the production capacity of the homelands corresponds with that of South Africa.

I should now like to discuss an aspect about which I feel rather strongly. It concerns the conception which the population of the country as a whole has of the farmer, agriculture and production. There are few people in the urban areas of South Africa with a sound grip of the problem we are discussing today, the problems involved in food production, agriculture and farming in general. The farmer is seen by the average city dweller as a reasonably simple type of person. He is not seen as a person who has the basic and primary responsibility of producing food for the country as a whole. After all, the feeding of the population is fundamental to the civilization and the economy of the country.

It is the responsibility of the Government and the Minister to see to it that the population as a whole has a sound knowledge of agriculture, and of how agriculture fits in with the rest of South Africa’s economy. The population must have a sound knowledge of the importance of agriculture to South Africa, its people and its economy. It is important that the population as a whole and the city-dweller in particular should appreciate what agriculture means to South Africa and to him personally. This can only happen if liaison work is done in order to inform and educate the people of South Africa on the issue of what agriculture means to South Africa and its population and why it is absolutely imperative for everyone to play his part in meeting the major challenge of our time—the production of sufficient food to keep our population alive and healthy.

The hon. member for Bethal mentioned the fact that the Department of Planning and the Environment has a responsibility as regards the protection of and the optimal utilization of land. It seems to me that insufficient attention is being paid to that aspect of our agriculture. If one considers what is being done throughout the country, one sees that thousands upon thousands of ha of land are lost due to the construction of roads, buildings and railways or harbours, etc. We must, of course, accept that it is inevitable for this to happen to a certain extent, but I do feel that if the availability of good agricultural land really enjoyed the right priority, thousands of ha of good agricultural land could be saved by way of sound planning so that such land is not lost to agriculture.

I see that the Whips opposite are indicating that it is time for me to resume my seat. I should therefore just like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to give attention, in the first place, to liaison work in order to bring about an improved understanding between the city-dweller and the farmer on the platteland, so that we can all have a part in meeting this tremendous challenge, i.e. the production of more food and, secondly, to take steps to protect the land which may be used for agricultural purposes, and which is the most valuable possession of South Africa and its people.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to thank, on behalf of my wife and myself, the hon. members of this House, the hon. members of the Other Place and the officials of Parliament in general, for the friendly manner in which we have been received and assisted here. We already feel at home. I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor. All hon. members knew Org du Plessis. I think he is an example of a dedicated person, of a farmer who served his community with every means at his disposal. He is also a model of preciseness and neatness. Therefore I hope that it will remain a privilege to me to represent that constituency in this House. I should like to continue in that same tradition.

In the short time that I have been in this House, I have listened to two debates on agriculture, one last week and another today, and I cannot help thinking about a story I heard about a small boy whose mother told him to go to church. He said that he did not want to go to church, but his mother insisted. So he went, and when he returned from church, his mother asked him: And what was the minister’s sermon about? The small boy answered that the minister’s sermon was about sin. When his mother wanted to know what the minister had said about sin, the small boy’s answer was: Well, Mother, he is also against it.

I do not want to repeat what has already been said today, because I think the subject under discussion has been covered very carefully and very thoroughly. Allow me however, to say a few words on the subject which was under discussion in last week’s debate on agriculture. I am referring to the cost aspects and what can be done in that regard.

What I actually want to do this afternoon, is to say a few words on marketing. As far as I am concerned the matter of the provision of food actually stands on three legs. One is production, the other is the processing and packaging of the product and then, thirdly, the marketing thereof. I shall be failing in my duty if I do not express an opinion on the production aspects of the agricultural industry. I do not want to cover the field that has already been covered. It has been covered very well. I should like to express my appreciation, however, for the attitude displayed by this hon. House with regard to the problems of the producer of food and other agricultural products in South Africa. The relevant figures have been quoted in this House, but I should like to repeat a few of them. For example, attention has already been drawn to the fact that the increase in production costs have not been taken into account as far as prices are concerned with the result that the return on capital to the agriculturalist is only 6,2%. This has caused working capital to become very scarce and has made it very difficult to obtain any capital in the agricultural sector. Eventually this has resulted in a tremendous increase in the debts of farmers. In this regard, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. the Ministers and the whole House for having left me with the impression that they agree with me that something has to be done to rectify the matter. In this regard I should like to say that even if the price of a product were to be increased to any extent, we would still be skating on thin ice if nothing were to be done about the risk factor at the present level of investment. It is a well-known fact that the capital investment of the 78 000 farmers in South Africa stands at approximately R250 000 per unit today. It is also a fact, however, that the maize farmer in the southern and south-western Transvaal and in the northern Free State invests R60 000 in working capital in his maize production alone. Should that farmer be hit by drought, hail or any other natural disaster and loose that amount as a result, he must have five years of fantastically good climate just to regain his lost capital. The point I want to make is that the risk factor has become tremendous and that we shall have to do something to remove or at least to lessen the risk. We know the problems involved in comprehensive crop insurance. We have considered and discussed comprehensive crop insurance and its disadvantages in the past. We shall nevertheless have to see whether an amended scheme cannot be introduced so as to give at least more security to the agriculturalist. Now I am talking about the established farmer who will find it difficult to overcome these blows. But what about the beginner? Is there any chance whatsoever for the beginner to enter the industry at the present rates of interest and the enormous risk factor? I leave it at that.

I said that I should like to say a few words about marketing today. I said that in my opinion food production stood on three legs. I do not want to say much about the aspect of processing and packaging, because a great deal can be said about that. This is one of the fields in which research has played a tremendous role. As far as research is concerned, I should just like to say that our control boards, which I shall discuss in a moment, have played an enormous role, and are only too grateful to have a future role to play, in the field of research as regards consumer goods, marketing, etc., which will enable us to provide better food to the community and the consumer.

Now we come back to marketing. We have 22 control boards which were established in terms of the Marketing Act of 1937, as amended to provide for new developments, and very often these boards are referred to by various bodies, including big businesses and the Press, as cumbersome, expensive and inefficient. What is the task of a control board? The task of a control board is—and I should like to put it in the simplest language—the co-ordination of production and consumption. In other words, it is to ensure, especially in the case of basic foodstuffs, that quality foods are available at any point and at any time to the consumer at the fairest and cheapest price. In the execution of that task the board has to have regard to estimates which can change tremendously over a period of three or four months as a result of climatic conditions and as a result of changes in the financial situation in the country. Therefore it is dealing with a very difficult matter and it cannot be specific and it can never be absolutely correct. I know of one instance when we in South Africa experienced a shortage of cheese. We went through the whole rigmarole of importing cheese from New Zealand, but by the time it arrived in Durban, we had a surplus of cheese again. Nothing can be done about it, but I am only mentioning it as an example. Can we say with any degree of responsibility that our control boards are cumbersome, expensive and inefficient? Let us test it against the facts of the matter. We have in South Africa 22 control boards with a total membership of 266. The hon. the Minister appointed a Parliamentary committee in connection with the Marketing Act. That committee made certain recommendations which were accepted by the members of organized agriculture and the control boards. The hon. the Minister still has to make a recommendation, but I believe that the number of members will be reduced drastically, with the consent of the control boards and the producers.

Let us have a look at the cost aspect. When I refer to control boards in South Africa, I am not referring to all 22 of them, because some of them control fibres. I refer only to those boards controlling food. The total cost of these control boards—I can furnish information regarding the number of people etc., but I furnish the round figure only—amounted to R13 million in 1975. Let us assume that the amount was R15 million. These boards controlled food to the value of R4 000 million, produced for 25 million people. In other words, the control, distribution and everything that went with it on behalf of the 25 million consumers in South Africa was undertaken at 60c per capita. Mr. Speaker, that is not even the price of a decent bottle of cooldrink. Let us draw another comparison. In 1974 the International Agricultural Conference was held in Washington. At this conference agricultural leaders of the world compared their marketing systems. Very interesting things emerged from these comparisons, and I think it was a fair manner of comparison. The hon. member for Paarl gave certain figures the other day when he drew a very interesting comparison. He asked how many hours a person had to work before he could afford a particular basket of food. Hon. members are aware of the figures he gave. In South Africa a person has to work 9,3 hours as compared with 25 hours in Japan. This is one way of comparing the price of food and the efficiency of such a system of control boards. But I should like to come back to my statement. When one compares what the consumer has paid for the product on his table with what the producer has originally received per unit, we get the following interesting information. In South Africa the consumer does not pay more than double the amount the producer has received for a single controlled food product. In most Western countries with which we co-operate and from which we could obtain figures—I can name those countries because I have the information with me—the consumer pays from three to five times more than the amount originally received by the producer for the raw products. I think this is a fair comparison to draw and for that reason quite an achievement.

Let us look at another aspect, Mr. Speaker. The only products in South Africa which are not under control, are fruit and vegetables. Let me add at once that I am aware of the fact that fruit and vegetables have their own distinctive problems. They are, however, the only products without control boards and these are the only products for which the consumer pays six times more than the amount received by the producer. I should like to state therefore that we are greatly indebted to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, to our departments and to the control boards for the manner in which they have united all sectors in each industry in a control board. In this way a platform has been created for the producer to state his case. In this way the consumer and the manufacturer can also state their case so that the problems may be examined together. These problems can be recognized in this way and decisions taken by way of consultation. In this way we need not look with our hats pulled down over our eyes at the system of the control boards in South Africa, because we are able to ensure in a fine uniform and stable way that the people of South Africa are fed to the advantage of us all.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to welcome the hon. member for Heilbron and to congratulate him on his maiden speech. I am sure that everybody here is exceptionally pleased to see a man of his capability in the House. He is not only chairman of the Free State Agricultural Union, but he was also chairman of the Dairy Board. I am sure the hon. the Minister is going to be very pleased to have the assistance of a man of his quality in the future. I am sure the hon. the Minister will also be pleased to have his assistance when he runs into problems with butter. A man of such capability can only do the House a lot of good. The only complaint I have is that he is sitting in the wrong party. [Interjections.] This hon. member is a top man.

To turn to the subject at hand, a number of members have already spoken on the motion which the hon. member for Bethal has moved and I am sure we all agree that we need more money for research. I am certainly not going to raise any form of political issue in the House on this subject, because I think we all need one another’s assistance in regard to the situation that we are faced with today. We do not need to fight over this issue. My attitude to the motion is possibly different from that of previous speakers. I do not see it as a matter of pure research, but as a matter of considering what the priorities in agriculture are, and it is in this respect that I want to address myself to the hon. the Minister. We must consider what the methods, the avenues and direction are that we need to take. Agriculture has now reached the cross-roads and unfortunately research has outrun practice. I am quite sure that we all agree that our researchers have done an admirable service to our country. In fact, they have done their work so well that the farmer does not understand it anymore. I must agree with the hon. member for Wynberg when he said that the farmer needs to be taught afresh, because we find that the research officer has got so far ahead of the farmer that we need to bring the farmer up to date. The hon. the Minister might disagree with this. I am not casting any reflection on the farmer; I am a farmer myself and I find that the help I have had from the various departments has been tremendous. Cedara is very close to me and every time I go there I find out that I do not know as much as I thought I knew.

The direction of research should be based on the following considerations: the plight of the farmer and the plight of the Black worker on the farm. These Black workers number almost 2 million; two out of every five Black workers in the country are employed in agriculture. These men need assistance; they need the farmer’s assistance and the department’s assistance. This is what research should be aimed at. In general, we should consider the unemployment position in South Africa and we should consider the balance of payments before we embark on a major new direction of research. I believe we have to rethink the entire programme.

In order to get a direction, I suggest we consider the following three main headings: The first is research into developments in agriculture and the promotion of new products and new agricultural frontiers; the second is the investigation of the marketing, promoting and advertising methods of the farming community; and the third is to re-educate and update farmers and workers. The first main direction which I should like the hon. the Minister to consider, could be subdivided into three headings: mechanics; new products; and new markets.

I should like to deal with the first one, the mechanical aspect. I suggest that we have another look at the sophisticated machines and implements that are available. This machinery has outrun the average farmer. If one considers the number of tractors that are broken due to bad management, bad maintenance and poor education on the part of the farmer and his worker, one realizes that this is an aspect which researchers must go into very carefully. One must remember that the machinery we have available today was designed for the farmers of the USA or Europe and not for the average South African farmer with his Black labour.

I should like to add that we could consider improving hand tools. We should consider making more use of hand tools in order to reemploy the thousands of peasant farmers in South Africa, and forget about the sophisticated machinery. Let us not demand to be in the hierarchy where the American farmer finds himself with his highly sophisticated implements and machines.

The cost of hand labour as compared to mechanization needs to be studied and this information should be given to the farmer. How does hand labour compete with the combine? This study of time and motion needs to be done. I am not suggesting that we should go back to hand-picking mealies, but in the case of the smaller farmers there are very valid reasons for considering a return to hand labour. I have made the necessary calculations and have found that on a small farm one can forget about the combine because hand-picking can be cheaper than using a combine. Does the average farmer know this? [Interjections.]

Where do you farm?

If the hon. member would do the calculations, he would find that I am correct. The hon. the Minister nodded his head; he knows that in some cases it is cheaper to hand-pick mealies than to do it with a combine. I am not suggesting that one should hand-pick the mealies on a 10 000 ha farm in the Free State, but on a small farm hand-picking will be cheaper than a combine every time, especially if there is wind or hail damage to the mealies. I think it is important that we should reconsider using hand labour and research needs to be done in this respect to enable the farmer to compare the cost of hand labour with that of mechanized labour.

I now want to consider the question of research into new products. We have, for instance, had a big boost in Mocadamian nuts. We could also look at other avenues. I am thinking of products like pecans and sugar-beet. Sugar-beet could be produced successfully in South Africa, but research needs to be done on it, it needs to be promoted and the farmer has to be motivated to produce it. The farmer himself is scared to tackle it because he does not know where to get rid of the product. The hon. the Minister’s department could assist the farmer in this respect. The same applies to soya-beans and dates. All these crops could be considered in South Africa. A lot of research has been done on the improvement of the crops we know about and we have reached a tremendously high standard in regard to those crops, but what about new crops?

I think we shall have to help and spoon-feed the present farmers. We cannot overlook the fact that they need assistance.

We also need to give close consideration to imported products. More than R100 million worth of agricultural products are imported into South Africa and there are only five items involved, viz. rice, coffee, tea, cocoa and rubber. Coffee, tea and cocoa alone amount to R54 million. I am positive that we can grow these products in South Africa.

Research on new markets for exports should be considered. We should consider to what other countries we can export. We must determine what we can produce and what other countries need.

The second main direction of research should be marketing, promoting and advertising. I am very pleased that the hon. member for Heilbron has indicated that he is in favour of promoting and marketing. I think this is where the weakest link in our agricultural section is to be found. It is very weak and we have not even started to touch upon this aspect at all. One of the biggest risks which the farmer faces today, is not the weather or his ability, but the market. He may send a whole load of cabbages to the market to find that the market is already flooded with them. He has to bear the cost of getting that load of cabbages to the market. He might get as much as 1 cent per head of cabbage, but on that same day that cabbage will be sold to the housewife for 25 cents. I think we should say “skande” to that. We should really consider how this matter can be improved upon. This is the research that is needed. We do not need to undertake research into how efficiently we can grow a blade of grass, but into how efficiently we can market these items and spread the risk in the marketing programme.

I would like to compare the budgets of, for instance, the Milk Board—I think my hon. friend can help in this regard—and of Coca Cola in respect of advertising. We have seen what Coca Cola and such firms spend in comparison to what is spent on the promoting and advertising of milk. How much do we spend promoting butter? One should compare that with what is spent in promoting Floro margarine nightly on television. They launched an enormous advertising campaign. It is then insinuated that butter is not a good product and is in fact an unhealthy product. I think a stop has to be put to this. I and my family are positive that butter is the best product money can buy. Packaging and display are also matters which the department could consider. The display and packaging of every product needs to be considered and researched.

I now want to refer to the meat industry. We have R2,7 billion worth of livestock on our farms. What would any business in this country spend on advertising a product like that? The retail sales of that product amount to almost R800 million. I am led to believe that we spend in the neighbourhood of between R100 000 and R200 000. The R2,7 billion worth of livestock on our farms is twice as much as all the tractors and implements on the farms put together. Imagine what is spent in selling the farmer those tractors and implements and compare it with what we spend on selling the product we have. Normally they spend approximately 2% of their sales on marketing, promotion and advertising. We spend l/80th of 1% of our sales on advertising. We have a very healthy product and we need to sell it. Even the hon. the Deputy Minister has said that meat is expensive, but it is not expensive. We need to get it across that in Japan the Japanese needs to work for 12% hours to earn enough money to eat 1 kg of rumpsteak, while in South Africa one only needs to work 0,97 hours to earn enough money. I think our meat is cheap. In Europe one must work three to four hours to earn enough money to buy a kilogram of meat. Yet papers tell us that meat is expensive in South Africa. We need to get it across to the housewife in this country that meat is cheap here.

That is very nice. Say it again.

Thank you. We will manage.

†I want to refer to the control boards. I am very pleased that we have a member here who is knowledgeable on exports. He can possibly assist us. From what I have seen of the Citrus Board, it has probably been the most aggressive of the lot. One can see these boards all over the world and they have moved, promoted and sold their products and they have done it well. I may be completely wrong. The other boards may be spending more money. I do not have the figures on this, but if we could establish more boards to go out more aggressively, they could indeed sell the product that they have to promote.

The third direction which I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider is education and retraining of our farmers. The duty of the research staff that is there now is to get the information which they have gathered over the last few years back to the farmers. We need to get away from theoretical and academic research. We have done that. We are ahead on that. Let us hold back a bit and then go forward again and let the research staff go out to the farms, talk to the farmer and tell the farmer exactly what they have done over the last five, 10 or 20 years. They must get it across to the farmer that he must apply scientific methods and the knowledge which they have acquired over the years.

Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect of the speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South with which I fully agree, viz. his congratulation of the hon. member for Heilbron. May I associate myself with it and say that as a person from a neighbouring constituency, I am proud of my neighbour. As a farmer in the Free State I am proud of the president of the Free State Agricultural Union. Today one enjoyed being proud of a political leader too in this House. We want to tell the hon. member for Heilbron that we look forward to the messages which he will bring here in future.

The hon. members who participated in this discussion, sketched in a expert way for us the problems which the future is going to hold for South Africa, Africa and the world. One realized with a measure of shock that a hungry generation may perhaps be the fate of the leaders of the future. Perhaps one may not lose sight of the fact that it is not impossible either that leaders in the future may have to declare war in their endeavour to obtain food and living-space for their hungry people. When we look at all these problems which the future may hold for us, we cannot but come to the disturbing conclusion that it is man alone who is responsible for his problems. It remains a disturbing truth that man is a master of the art of destroying and spoiling his own valuables. Fortunately neglected soil is not yet a serious problem in South Africa, but higher up in Africa is an example to us of this problem. When one considers the behaviour of some peoples in Africa, the behaviour of leaders in Africa, they who do not appreciate the value of a stable existence for their people, one realizes that the old saying may also be true for the future, viz.: The easiest destruction is self-destruction. That is why one is so much more aware of the fact that high ideals which make due allowance for reality and the welfare of humanity as a whole, may make an important contribution towards avoiding economic and political wars, if these ideals can be carried out by means of international co-operation. But unfortunately politics is much more important than the welfare of their people to so many leaders, especially to leaders in Africa. This situation has arisen since Africa freed itself from its colonial rulers. When the world and the UN today have good intentions towards Africa and if the five Western nations have good intentions towards Africa, I think that they should with good reason do a little soul-searching in order to see whether they are not jointly responsible for the problems of Africa and the problems of a hungry population in Africa. And if these great powers want to make a contribution today, it should rather be to teach Africa to look to the welfare of its people in a responsible way and that political power is not everything.

South Africa not only has the potential of producing for itself, but it also has a potential of developing Africa’s potential. Then when we look at the potential which can be developed, we realize that it will only be possible for this to happen if there is mutual co-operation in Southern Africa on a regional basis, co-operation to realize this tremendous agricultural potential. If we consider what the need of the future is going to be, I am afraid that we will have to arrive at the conclusion that blind optimism can only lead to disillusionment.

That is why, when we look at the future problems of Africa, we must look at them over the short term, the medium term and the long term as well. I think that one of the greatest tasks of research over the short term must be aimed at the orderly collection and storage of food with the least possible wastage and spoilage. South Africa is traditionally an export country, but there are some commodities which we must obtain from abroad from time to time, often at a price. Storage and preservation may be expensive, but it is very probable that not a decade will pass in Africa without having to make use of an extensive Joseph policy. In this sphere, the research of the microbiologist, the chemist and the biochemist in particular will be of inestimable value for the accumulation and storage of food for the hungry people of the future. Over the medium term, the mass of humanity will demand to an ever greater extent the development and refinement of our protein resources. In this sphere, the task of the geneticist and the animal husbandman will become extremely important. I think, as far as the protein-rich foodstuffs are concerned, research in the future will rest upon five important pillars. Firstly, breeding science which must be supported by genetics and perhaps, to a certain extent, by mathematics as well. Secondly, the science of nutrition, which will be dependent on knowledge in the sphere of biochemistry, physiology and research on the application of this knowledge. Thirdly: Research into applied physiology is equally important, emanating from the application of anatomy. Fourthly, the science of adaptation will rely, inter alia, on ecology and a study of animal behaviour will be just as important. Animal husbandry is a subject which is primarily applicable on the farm. It therefore implies that the human factor which, by managerial skill or the lack of it, will ultimately determine to a large extent the degree of success, will demonstrate that the age-old saying “The eye of the master fattens his cattle” is still true today in spite of all the progress made. This coincides with the related economy and animal care, a pillar which will present a challenge in the future because Africa is ripe for development in this sphere. I think that animal husbandry has a message in Africa, viz. that with its natural food resources and its natural space, Africa has the potential to become the protein larder of the world, with the necessary knowledge of the animal which must be kept healthy on the high food value pasturage which Africa has plenty of.

In the long term, the responsibility of the researcher will rather be how to convey his knowledge so that it can be utilized, and I think that this alone is a tremendous field for research. Let the world rather experience problems with instability of nature, or with natural disasters or droughts. We may not enter the future with a lack of knowledge. I think that the world will have to learn not only how to produce food and how to store it, but we shall also have to teach the so-called modern world how to eat. I think that a sphere which is going to become much more important in future, is education in eating habits in this modern world. Firstly, the food processors will have to be persuaded, but training in this sphere of school education is just as important. This is a sphere which we cannot leave to the doctors alone. Their responsibility is to make people healthy. Their task is not to prevent disease. Information services should be able to offer imaginative, interesting, simple reading matter in this sphere to the child and the illiterate people in Africa. I think that if this matter is tackled as it ought to be, the food fads of today will blow over and the flourishing vitamin industry would shrink to its rightful size. The so-called organic foods would disappear, breakfast health-foods would diminish in importance and cooldrinks would be put aside. Instead of this our people can return to a healthy diet consisting of the moderate use of meat, bread, milk and vegetables. South Africa was one of the best-fed nations in the world and I think we still are, but we are no longer the healthiest. However, I think that with moderation as our goal, we can become the healthiest once again and I think, with the necessary adaptations, Africa can taste prosperity in this sphere together with us.

The responsibility for future research cannot be placed upon the shoulders of the agricultural researcher only. The man who drills for oil or who has to refine it, cannot work on an empty stomach. The doctor who transplants hearts, cannot do good work while he is worried about his food. The hungry educationist cannot give a realistic message to his audience and a confused listener cannot understand the proclamation of the gospel. History has taught us, that from the moment when the famous Italian researcher Giordano Bruno said in 1588 that the investigation of nature in the unbiassed light of reason was our only guide to truth, such scientists as the mathematician Newton, the chemist Pasteur and the leader in the sphere of breeding, Bakewell, have all co-operated to bring about a better world for us, filled with greater joie de vivre. There have been people like this in South Africa as well. For instance we think of people like Reynders, Bosman and Neethling, of Arnold Thyler, Prof. F. X. Loubser, Prof. Blackie Swart, who passed away last week, and others. At the moment there are more of them in South Africa. We need only think of people like Frans van der Merwe, Hennie Laubscher and Hennie Louw, as well as Prof. Bonsma. These are people who made a contribution because they strove to achieve a definite goal. From now on, the responsibility for the future will lie with everyone who has knowledge, aiming at a definite goal.

The past had its pioneers. At present we have people, but the most important are going to be those people of the future, those people in whose hands the future rests. We are going to need a co-ordinated research initiative in future. When we talk about a co-ordinated research initiative, we are talking about something that is going to cost money. I think that South Africa and the world will have to realize that the surest investment is going to be that investment which will enable the researcher, with the aid of the knowledge of others, to carry out his task in order to ensure that we will have a world of tomorrow in which everyone can live with joie de vivre.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bethal has presented an excellent case here this afternoon. I believe he has motivated it extremely well. We agree wholeheartedly with his motion and we feel that agricultural research has a great need. It is in itself a great need. However, agricultural research has many facets and I wish to confine myself to that facet of which I have more than a working knowledge. I wish to confine myself to the research and the work that has been and should be done in respect of things mechanical, because we are in the age of the farmer who relies very heavily on mechanization.

Agricultural machinery is becoming more and more important to the agricultural industry in general. I think we will all accept that various manufacturers are constantly striving to improve their machines and their ancillary equipment. Now, my question is this. Are our manufacturers going about things in the right way? Are they doing everything possible to develop the simplest and most rugged implement to do a specific job, or are they channelling their research along the lines of trying to produce a piece of equipment that will do everything, cost everything and has not a hope of standing up to our South African conditions which, to say the least of it, are extremely rugged?

Let me put in the language which, I believe, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture will understand best. Is it not a far better proposition to have a three point linkage tool bar that will fit any make of tractor, to which anything, from a subsoiler shank, a tiller or a cultivator tine, a planting or a fertilizer bin can be fitted which can be adjusted to suit any row width to which the farmer may be working, for any specific crop with which he may be working? Is it not far better to have that sort of equipment than to have to buy four or five separate implements to suit one’s tractor which, for argument’s sake, may be fitted with a category 1 type three point linkage? And if one does have a category 1 type three point linkage and one happens to change one’s tractor and one now buys a machine with a category 2 type linkage, one has to start all over again buying extremely expensive equipment.

My theme, my point of argument, is standardization. Standardization and simplicity should be the names of the game. It is time that we convince the manufacturers of this. I believe that the manufacturers must now get together. The manufacture of agricultural machinery is a thriving industry in South Africa. The manufacturers have to get together with their research teams and make positive efforts towards the goals that I have outlined as this can only result in the lowering of implement costs. As far as the cost of tractors is concerned, that is beyond the pale, and any farmer in South Africa will agree with that statement.

What does Malcomess say.

It is not Malcomess’s fault, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] It is not his fault at all. However, in the long run we can lower the costs of these implements. The consumer will definitely benefit and the consumer will benefit without loss of profit percentage anywhere else along the line. The consumer will benefit, not at the expense of the manufacturer, not at the expense of the dealer or the retailer, because his profit percentage can remain the same. The consumer is going to benefit by virtue of the fact that because of adequate research work being carried out we are able to introduce a simpler and more effective implement to do the job.

In the short time at my disposal I would like to associate myself with some of the remarks passed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I believe that with research we must couple training. Properly trained operators can save the agricultural industry millions of rand. This training is possible. Allow me to elaborate on what has taken place in the sugar industry because the bulk of my constituency is the north coast of Natal, which is an area concerned with the sugar industry. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti returned from Canada some 15 years ago and embarked on a research study into mechanization in the sugar industry. Incorporated in this was a training programme for the Bantu operator. The hon. member evolved a very, very simple system whereby any unskilled labourer could effectively undertake what one could call preventative maintenance of his machinery. He evolved a wall chart with pictures and each day the labourer knew, by looking at the pictures, that he had to pull the dip-stick and check the oil level. He had to take the filler cap off the radiator and check the water level. He knew that he had to fill the fuel tank at night and not in the morning so as to preclude the possibility of condensation during the night introducing water into the diesel fuel. He knew all these things from illustrations on a wall. Then he had illustrated a weekly function and a monthly function. This constitutes training of unskilled labour. Sir, believe you me, this saved the sugar industry hundreds of thousands of rands. It is something which I believe should be extended into the maize industry and into all types of farming where mechanization is an expensive item.

In terms of the rules my time has expired, but let me assure you, Sir, that I can still speak on this topic for a considerable length of time.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the motion of the hon. member for Bethal, as all sides of the House do. It is essential for us to have this type of discussion. What it all boils down to is that if, in a time of financial scarcity, we have enough researchers and still have some money left over to do research and provide information in the agricultural industry, so that our wheat yield can be improved, without increasing production costs, from the present, say, 13 bags per ha to 40 bags per ha as a result of the correct seed varieties, we will be able to sell bread at a very low price. The whole matter boils down to this and also, as the hon. member pointed out, to future food shortages.

I should like to give the hon. member for Bethal an answer to the important point which he raised. The hon. member and myself understand one another when it comes to co-operatives. The co-operative with which the hon. member is involved, has already made about 40 bursaries available. In the past, private enterprise and the co-operatives were only too ready to draw people from the department and the universities. However, they are now doing their share, too, and in this way they are assisting in the important task which awaits us.

The hon. member also referred to the role of the various agricultural faculties at our universities. It is my heartfelt desire, as well as the desire of the Secretary of Agricultural Technical Services and his department, that there should not be any estrangement as a result of the removal of the faculties from the jurisdiction department. We hope that there will still be the closest co-ordination in the future between the university faculties and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services with its various institutes. We are giving this matter our attention and we want to make it our business to ensure that nothing goes wrong in this regard. With this object in mind, we shall keep on paying more attention to this matter.

With the exception of what he said at the end, the hon. member for Wynberg made a good speech. He said that research should also be done in order to determine the size of the market and to give the farmer an indication of where he should market his produce. The hon. member referred to the cultivation of vegetables in this regard. But the hon. member must bear in mind that climatic conditions play a decisive role in South Africa. One can have all the experts in the world telling you that one should market this way or that and produce one thing or another, but if one has a drought, or some natural disaster or other hits one, one will have problems. Several of the matters to which he referred, are enjoying our attention. However, there is no fixed rule which one can apply in this regard.

The hon. member said that the farmer should be trained to do his own costing. However, researchers are realizing more and more that it is useless to do research if one forgets two things. Firstly, one must not forget to convey those research results to the producer. It is absolutely no use to have all the knowledge in the world at the department and its institutes or at the faculties of the various universities if this does not reach the man who has to produce the product, so that he can be trained to apply the correct techniques.

The researchers also realized that it was no use saying that this was the method and the new technique if the economy side was forgotten in the meantime. The economic aspect is just as important. Is it profitable for the producer to apply those techniques? There is talk of 60 bags of maize per hectare, but then the fertilizer costs as much as what the farmer receives for 50 bags of maize and he spends what he receives for the remaining 10 bags on diesel fuel and labour. He could rather have left matters as they were. Therefore, economics plays just as important a role. We are beginning to find that our farmers are now realizing this. The hon. member for Wynberg wanted to know whether the farmer fully realizes what his production costs are. I recently attended a study group among the Karoo farmers. There were 18 young farmers, not one of them older than 35. One of them stood up and told me that, on the basis of research on insemination of Karoo sheep— can hon. members believe this!—he tried to cut down his costs as much as possible and also tried to push the percentage of lambs above 100% with twin lambs, etc. He could set out his costs in the greatest detail. He even said that his pick-up truck cost him so much per hectare per year. In this way he had worked out the yield of his sheep—wool, meat and everything—in the greatest detail. This is the extent to which farmers have already become financially orientated.

However, I now want to come to the question of what we are doing for Africa. Can anyone show me one Africa State which came to ask for our assistance in any research programme in the agricultural sphere—at Onderstepoort, the wheat-growing station at Stellenbosch, Bethlehem or any other institution—which we turned away? Mention any country—Nigeria, Zambia, Kenya, even Russia: Have we ever refused any country which came to us and asked for an exchange of knowledge?

The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs furnished me with figures which indicate that we traded with 49 African States last year. Last year, as against the year before last, we increased our trade with Africa by 156%. However, we do not bruit it abroad. Political considerations are not always all that count. Sometimes those countries have financial problems. Hon. members must tell me whether they want us to sell wheat to an African State at R80 per ton if we can get R112 per ton on the world market. Who must pay the difference? I want to refer once again to the quantity of vaccine which Onderstepoort sent beyond the Iron Curtain last year for new diseases which those people did not know anything about. We have already done the research work. No, we do not turn our backs when it comes to agricultural knowledge, but how do those countries treat us? If we visit those countries who are always talking about kicking us out, they open doors to us in the agricultural sphere, and they know that they are welcome in our country too. There are several people who are helping us at the moment and who also come to learn from us. Dr. Verbeek, the Secretary of Agricultural Technical Services, and I have already visited several countries. One enjoys seeing how those countries question us and ask for a person working on a specific project in South Africa, to come and visit them too in order to tell them whatever they want to know, our doors are open to them.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said that the researchers deserve recognition. He mentioned one important point in particular. I have said this before and I want to repeat it now: A hungry soldier is never ready to do battle! One can spend all the money in the world on defence, but if we do not see that the man who is doing the research and guidance is receiving a wage or remuneration which is such that we can keep him, we will have trouble with the biggest army in the world, because the men will be hungry.

The hon. member for Bryanston had the decency to say that he had to catch a plane. I said I was going to say in his absence that I give him ten out of ten for what he said here, especially that the importance of the South African farmer has never been recognized by the consumer and is still being underestimated. I appreciate hearing things like this from a member of the Opposition. He also said that in the year 2000 we would have only 0,32 ha for every person who has to be fed. We cannot expand horizontally any more. We must now expand vertically by trying to produce more and more on every hectare. That is why this motion of the hon. member for Bethal is so important.

The hon. member for Heilbron spoke about the risk factor. That is what we are worried about. Our costs are so high that we can no longer afford to have half a harvest. The 60c per capita which the population of this country spends to control R4 000 million’s worth of agricultural products, is a drop in the ocean. I am so pleased that hon. member mentioned this aspect. He and I have been getting on well for a long time. He is the president of the Free State Agricultural Union, but he is also chairman of the Dairy Board. He and I, a few on this side and perhaps a few on that side too, are the only people who, to this day, understand why one makes butter more expensive when there is a surplus. My thanks to the hon. member for Heilbron.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South spoke about the training of labourers. We have opened a centre now. There is Kromme Rhee for the Coloureds, but I must agree with him that it is very important to create even more training facilities. He also referred briefly to the training of the farmer. We are still carrying on with this.

†He also asked whether we should not encourage farmers—especially the small farmers—to hand pick maize in preference to picking it with combines. He is perfectly right, of course, but unfortunately we have had to switch over to bulk handling because of the advent of silos. The cost of exporting in bags is simply too high.

The small farmer should be encouraged not to buy a combine of R30 000 and use it for a week and then leave it under a willow tree for the rest of the year, but rather to form a cooperative, or alternatively, handpick as the hon. member suggested.

The hon. member also referred to sugar-beet. Compared with sugar cane, it is not profitable to produce sugar-beet in South Africa. In any event, there is a glut of sugar on the market. Farmers on the Makatini Flats and in the eastern Transvaal lowveld are prepared to plant sugar cane if they can get quotas. I can see no solution to the problem by switching to sugar-beet.

The hon. member went on to refer to the amount the firm Coca Cola spent on advertising compared with the amount spent on advertising or the promotion campaign in respect of, say, butter or cheese. Coca Cola is a product that is sold under a brand name whereas butter and cheese are obtained from various co-operatives, factories and individuals. One cannot expect the Dairy Board to spend such vast amounts of money on promotion work. Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola, Fanta, etc., are all competing against each other. The same applies to margarine which is marketed under various brands, e.g. Rama, Flora, etc. However, butter is not marketed under a variety of brand names. The large commercial firms pay income tax and, as soon as they find they are making a good profit, they rather spend more on advertising campaigns than pay more income tax.

*The hon. member for Bethlehem pointed out the various areas which may still be explored. This is what makes agriculture so dynamic. With respect towards the other Ministers, Sir: We talk about mining. It is a wasting asset—one simply takes from the soil and puts nothing back. On the other hand, agriculture is always becoming stronger. I really enjoy listening to the hon. member for Bethlehem.

†The hon. member for Umhlanga spoke about the three-point linkage or the tool-bar that does not fit the other implements. I think he is making a mistake there. We can have a private discussion on this point. If one buys a Ford, a Massey Ferguson, a Fiat or a John Deere, one will find that all their three-point links fit any other implement in South Africa. That has already been standardized. We also have the division of agricultural mechanization going into all these problems to try to avoid additional costs. I think the hon. member must have bought a very strange type of tractor with a strange type of point linkage.

A second-hand one.

Yes, probably.

*In any event, we can go into that.

While on the subject of research, I should like to furnish an example to demonstrate how important research is. There is a place called Armoedsvlakte—one of the most awful names which one can think of. It is situated near Vryburg. If one asks: “Why Armoedsvlakte?” the people there will tell you: “This is where the sheep and cattle died. There was no chance for anyone to make a living here.” They will take you to the place where Sir Arnold Tyler sat and wondered why the cattle were dying. Then he noticed a beast which was eating the bone of one which had already died. It was gnawing at that bone. Then he realized that there was a shortage of calcium in that region. What did he do? He used salt and bone meal and today Vryburg is not an “armoedsvlakte”, but one of the most highly productive cattle regions in the country.

Hear, hear!

There are a few regions which are even better, though! At the moment research is being carried out in the Western Cape into virus-free plant material. We can increase our apricot, peach, pear and grape harvest by 30% by using virus-free plant material for the root stock. New techniques are always being discovered, for example the biological control of plagues, like scale insects on citrus. While it was previously possible to export only 50% of the production of our citrus orchards, in spite of a spraying programme of 80% spray per tree, those farmers are now able to export 80% of their citrus as a result of biological control, i.e. by simply letting insects which attack the scale insects loose in the orchards.

They are now producing fine, healthy oranges and they are not using sprays at all. I could go on in this way.

The price of nitrogen has increased tremendously. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services is working on several projects. They have published a thick yearbook in which they detailed all the various projects on which they are engaged. Let me give just one example. As I said, the price of nitrogen has gone up tremendously and therefore an investigation is being conducted at the moment into a certain leguminous crops which will put more nitrogen back into the soil. In this way we want to make the cheap method of nitrogen recovery available. At the Summer Wheat Centre in Potchefstroom there are already 70 technicians who are giving their attention to the cultivation of maize. They are working in co-operation with the Soil and Irrigation Research Institute, the Plant Protection Research Institute, the Agricultural Engineering Division, Plant and Seed Control and Agricultural Information. All these people get together in order to try and do what the hon. member for Bethal asked for. I may just point out that Dr. Arthur Healey of New Zealand is visiting South Africa at the moment in order to help us with the problem which they have had for a long time, the problem of Nassella tuft grass. In this way knowledge is exchanged with other countries. Prof. Hooker, who is world-renowned for the work which he has done in the field of maize diseases, is going to spend a few months in our country later on in the year. Therefore the tax-payer of the country—you and I, the Black and the White man—must look at agricultural research with respect, because what is the result? The best investment which the tax-payer can make, is to say: “My pocket is open to the financing of research projects.” As hon. members correctly said, we shall not gain a single morgen of ground in future. On the contrary, every year we are losing between 20 000 and 30 000 ha to the building of freeways and cities. The population is growing by 2,6% per year and the people must have somewhere to live. What have we done over the past 20 years, Mr. Speaker? With this research programme—I say it is not yet good enough because more money must be made available—we have already had an increase of 4% to 5% in food production over the past 15 years. We are earning foreign exchange abroad because we have become an exporting country.

I want to thank the hon. member for Bethal for the motion which he introduced. I am also grateful for the standpoint which all parties in the Opposition have adopted, viz. that the tax-payers have never hampered us when we have tried to produce more food. Let us keep to our slogan: Food for peace and prosperity. I say once again: A hungry soldier is never ready to do battle. In this way we will be able to talk about a Joseph policy, as the hon. member for Bethlehem called it—where we are able to fill our granaries with food. We have already had six blessed years of rain. If we have one more, I think that we can start breathing easily because then we may perhaps be able to cope with a year or two of drought. Then, I believe, we will have a happy nation. Unemployment prevails and we are mechanizing due to the cost of labour. If I had to go to bed hungry tonight knowing that I would have to look for work the following day even though I knew that I would not find any, I would become a communist, so help me. I would become anything. I would even revolt and steal. However, if everyone has food to eat and a full stomach, there cannot be much adversity for us in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my gratitude for the manner in which this motion has been discussed. Both sides of the House are in agreement on the necessity for agricultural research in South Africa. Consequently, I request your permission, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw the motion.

With leave, motion withdrawn.