reported that the Standing Committee on Vote No. 37.—“Water Affairs”, had agreed to the Vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we had a fairly extensive argument about this Bill at Second Reading. It is, as hon. members know, a short Bill, encompassing only two clauses, and does not introduce any new principle. What it does, however, is to extend the principle that was introduced many years ago—in 1965—by the Criminal Procedure Act of that year, as amended in 1976. It extends too the detention of witnesses by virtue of the Act which was passed in 1977— section 12B of the Internal Security Act.

When these original Acts were passed they permitted the detention of witnesses incommunicado for periods of up to six months. We objected to that principle then, and it is quite clear therefore that we are going to object to any extension of the time of detention of witnesses in solitary confinement.

We consider, in any case, detention without due process of the law as offensive. We also consider that detention in solitary confinement is in itself a form of torture. This measure now allows for detention for not only six months, but for as long as the case in which the witness is to give evidence is proceeding. We have experienced that there are many cases where internal security is concerned, or where serious crimes under the schedules of the Criminal Procedures Act are concerned, where trials continue for many months beyond the six months’ period. We are against this, and we are obviously, therefore, going to vote against this Bill.

We are completely unimpressed with the arguments advanced during the course of the Second Reading debate and during the Committee Stage of the Bill, that it is necessary to protect witnesses in these cases, because we immediately asked the relevant questions, e.g.:If people are so concerned about the safety of a witness giving evidence, why are they not concerned about the safety of such witness when the case is concluded? It would appear that he has then served his purpose and that, as far as anybody else is concerned, he can have his throat cut. So we are very unimpressed by the argument that it is in the interests of the witness that he be so protected during the course of the trial in which he is required to give evidence.

I do not know of any country—and I have asked the hon. the Minister if he could tell us about any country—this side of the Iron Curtain, other than countries that do not profess to be bound by Western customs, by Western mores, by Western laws, that has a measure of this kind on its Statute Book. There are other countries in the world that are facing internal perils, countries threatened by terrorism, and that are worried about their internal security. However, I do not know of any such country which has a measure of this kind on its Statute Book, a measure in terms of which a witness in a trial can be detained and held incommunicado for many months while the trial is proceeding. Nor do we believe that this is the sort of statute which South Africa should be putting on its Statute Book. We believe that a measure of this kind is going to take us still further along the path which we have been pursuing since the early 1960s in South Africa, a path away from the normal processes of the law. For those reasons we are going to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, at this the Third Reading of this Bill we in these benches are very sad that the hon. the Minister of Justice and hon. members of the NP have refused once again to listen to the pleas from the Opposition benches that we should lend some judicial respectability to detention of witnesses in this particular case and, of course, of all detainees. The latter, however, is not under discussion now.

We have seen repeatedly, over the last six to eight months, the tremendous damage that has been done to South Africa and to the cause of our country in general by the sort of actions that have taken place and by the death of Biko. Sir, I am not trying to apportion blame. All I am trying to do is to make the case that these actions have harmed South Africa. I can quote hon. members opposite who will agree with me that damage has been caused. If we can in any shape or form alter the situation so that not as much damage is caused by actions of this nature, then I believe it is the duty of a responsible Government to do so. In the Bill before us the Minister of Justice had the opportunity to alter the situation so that the case for further detention of a witness, over and above the six-month period, could be handled by a Judge in Chambers or perhaps by the presiding judicial officer in charge of the trial concerned, but despite repeated pleas, not made light-heartedly, but made with the best interests of South Africa in mind, the Minister and that side of the House have seen fit once again not to give any sort of judicial respectability to the matter by placing anything before a judicial tribunal, but to take executive action once again. They apparently believe that they are the only people who can make a decision of this nature in the best interests of South Africa. That is of course something which we in these benches refute. We shall continue with our refusal to support this Bill, and will be voting against it at Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to reply to a few of the questions asked. The hon. member for Houghton asked me whether we were not interested in these witnesses after the court case was over. I can give the hon. member the assurance that after people who have been detained for their own safety have given evidence, the police see to it that they remain safe. It is true that they are not placed in prison unless they so request themselves, but we try and remove them from the court and the area of their previous activities in such a way that we are satisfied that they are quite safe. We can do it then, because they are not needed as witnesses any more. While they are waiting to be called as witnesses, however, one obviously has to keep them in a prison. Afterwards, we do everything possible to place them in a safe position. Therefore, we take a great deal of interest in keeping these people safe throughout.

The hon. member asked me whether similar action is taken in other countries. I can only refer the hon. member to a book that our Department of Foreign Affairs wrote a few years ago, i.e. South Africa and the Rule of Law. On page 42 we find the following—

It would therefore seem that there are such cases. [Interjections.] The hon. member for East London North reproached me because we do not want to free witnesses after six months, and maintains that this type of action, this type of Bill, harms South Africa abroad.

Yes, without judicial respectability.

I concede that something of the kind would probably harm South Africa’s reputation. Yet I wonder whether the hon. member has ever thought what damage South Africa is done when there is a court case on terrorism—examples of which I quoted in the discussion of my Vote—and the witnesses who can prove the guilt of the accused in the terrorism case, are freed and we are no longer able to find the accused guilty.

You do not understand our point.

I wonder whether the hon. member realizes the harm that is done to South Africa when those accused people then have to be freed, because there is no evidence to find them guilty, and when they are allowed to re-enter the community.

But that is not our argument.

But it is the argument of the hon. member for East London North, i.e. that this type of action is to the detriment of South Africa. I in turn say that South Africa is prejudiced much more when witnesses have to be freed and the State loses the court case as a result.

At the moment approximately 66 terrorist cases are in progress or pending. I give hon. members the assurance that for our part we do our very best to bring the accused in those cases to trial as soon as possible to prevent the need to detain the witnesses longer than is absolutely necessary. I also want to give the assurance that where I can do something to get those cases disposed of within the period of six months, I shall do so. But I cannot promise that we will not detain witnesses for longer than six months, because we have to detain them as long as it is necessary for the purpose of court case.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—112: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J.B. G.; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé,W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wessels, L.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. P. A. Reyneke, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and V. A. Volker.

Noes—27: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise at a time when, as far as the timber industry in South Africa is concerned, we are in a very serious situation indeed. For many years this hon. Minister’s predecessor, and the hon. the Minister himself, did a major job in persuading people in South Africa to plant timber. We had projections over the years which indicated that South Africa’s timber requirements are going to be enormous. Over the same period doubt was expressed whether we would ever be able to plant timber fast enough to get ourselves in a situation where supply could meet demand, let alone cut down as much as we would have liked to on imported timber and imported timber products. After all these years of persuasion we find ourselves today unfortunately and unhappily in a situation of over-supply. The timber industry is in a parlous state. Not only is it parlous at the moment; The evidence is that this situation will persist for a considerable period of time. In evidence given before the Select Committee on the Forest Amendment Bill, a Bill which will shortly come before us, we were told that statistics showed that the situation of over-supply would continue until approximately the year 2012—in other words, for 30 years. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of these statistics, but it is nevertheless quite apparent that we will be in a situation for the forseeable future where there is too much timber on the market. Too much timber is being marketed for the use South Africa can make of it.

What is the Government’s solution to this? I do not believe that a solution lies in legislation. I want to put to the hon. the Minister a point of view: I believe that our Government has a moral responsibility to these growers, because it is largely because of the Government’s public relations exercise and persuasion, that many people are now heavily involved in growing timber which led to a glut on the market. Many protection reactions manifested themselves as a result of the situation of over-supply. We have for example the Bill that will shortly be before us and which I do not, in fact, believe offers any solution. However, one of the more unpleasant manifestations is the timber agreements supposedly entered into between the South African Lumber Millers’ Association and suppliers. According to a newspaper report, this agreement, which will inevitably boost inflation as far as prices are concerned, has been entered into in the recent past, viz. April. From what I can see in a timber report which appeared in the Sunday Times of 9 April, a highly undesirable situation is coming about in that an agreed price is paid by all suppliers who buy timber from members of the South African Lumber Millers’ Association. I appreciate the fact that saw-millers have been suffering a considerable loss over the last year or so. I agree that the situation in the industry is chaotic. I also want to put to the hon. the Minister that agreements of this nature is, in the first instance, no solution and, in the second instance, highly undesirable. I believe the hon. the Minister should invoke the legislation concerning monopolies on our statute book, because I believe that this is a monopolistic situation, and if the present legislation is not adequate I believe it is up to the hon. the Minister to do something about it. I do not believe that we should allow this sort of situation to exist. The Bill that will shortly be coming before us is another manifestation, but it is also no solution. The problem is over-supply. We have too much timber at the moment.

How are we going to deal with this? Obviously the first thing one must think about is encouragement for increased exports of timber and timber products. The local market just cannot absorb production. Therefore we have to look to other markets. This is not easy, because there is an over-supply of timber and timber products throughout the world at the moment. However, I believe we are in a competitive situation and we should be able to compete even with a tough overseas market provided the Government does its job and offers export incentives.

I believe the hon. the Minister must apply his mind to the possibility of export incentives. We have seen no incentives in terms of dealing with the problem on the local market or even on the export market. What we have had are expense items such as increased rail tariffs which have been applied to the timber industry. This has an absolutely crippling effect on the timber industry. When growers pay as much as they do for the transport of their products to local or to export markets, it tends to make their product totally uncompetitive and takes them right out of the running. I therefore believe that the hon. the Minister should start thinking in terms of speaking to the hon. the Minister of Transport about these rail rates or in terms of subsidizing rail rates to encourage the export market. I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister what he intends doing in this regard, because I believe that the situation needs positive action on the part of the Government. I do not believe that the legislation which is coming before us is adequate and I further believe that the confidence of timber growers has been undermined. I am quite prepared to accept that the long-term projections for timber demand will, as the time goes by, rectify themselves. The situation will possibly improve as the country comes out of its economic slump, and we might then find ourselves in a situation where we are short of timber. We need urgent action from the hon. the Minister at the moment to deal with a situation which is destroying the confidence of the timber industry. I think he must do so against the background and the knowledge that the State, in that it owns many forests itself, is in direct competition with the rest of the industry. I know that the State has been exercising a considerable amount of restraint and that it has been cutting back on its supply proportionately. I think the hon. the Minister must think in terms of how he can use the ownership of the State forests to help relieve the situation in the industry at the moment.

I now want to deal with another subject altogether. One has to realize that there are many important aspects of the Department of Forestry’s operations and that it is very difficult to deal with them all in the short time one’s disposal. Apart from the management of State plantations, there are also other functions of considerable importance. In this regard I think of the running of State sawmills and of tremendous research projects. The aspect I would like to deal with has to do with the control over wilderness areas, a function which, to my mind, is one of the most important of the department. The department has under its control more than 184 000 ha of wilderness land and approximately 7 500 ha of nature reserve. I think we are all well aware of how important outdoor recreation is to the wellbeing of society. The growth of wilderness trails, encouraged by the department, has been spectacularly successful. If one looks at some of the statistics recorded in the departmental report, one finds that, for example, as far as overnight visits on the Outeniqua trail are concerned there were close to 6 000 during 1977; the Fanie Botha hiking trail in the Transvaal also had over 6 000 overnight visits, and the Zoutpansberg hiking trail close on 5 000 overnight visits. The fact that more than 35 000 mountaineers obtained permits to operate in forestry land in the western Cape forest region alone, makes one realize what growth has taken place in this regard. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove talked about over-supply in the forest industry. We realize that the position is serious, but I do not think he should place the whole responsibility to solve the problem on the Government. In my short speech here today, I shall try to indicate to the hon. member that the timber industry itself can do a lot to solve this problem.

*It is a fact that the sawmill industry is going through a very difficult time, obviously because of the economic slump we are experiencing, but particularly, too, because the timber industry itself is not doing so well. We hope this situation will come right. Estimates given by witnesses before the Select Committee on the Forestry Act, show that the overproduction could be as much as 1 million tons.

In spite of the fixed wholesale prices in the timber industry, sawmillers have been obliged to give discounts in order to sell their timber. We learned that some of these millers had given a discount of as much as 35%. This obviously had a tremendous influence on the cash flow position of these sawmillers. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that this is a serious situation, for the fact is that the people actually broke the law. I know price control has now been abolished, but the situation will have to be watched very carefully. If necessary the hon. the Minister should be prepared to re-impose price control.

One could certainly hold the view that the free market mechanism should be allowed to play its role in such a situation. I want to maintain however, that that would not be the right attitude. It would mean that a number of small sawmills would disappear. The major sawmills usually have other interests which can keep them going. If we were to allow these conditions to continue however, many of the smaller sawmills would have to close, thus posing the threat of monopsonistic conditions: in other words, there will be many sellers, but few buyers. I think the hon. the Minister should pay attention to this aspect, because I believe that in the long run it would not be in the interests of the sawmill industry if the small sawmills were to close down. The consumer will perhaps argue that it is to his, the consumer’s, benefit if timber becomes cheaper. We have had the situation that people have had to give a discount on timber, but I am convinced that there were very few instances of this discount filtering through to the consumer. The discount given, disappeared into the trade.

In other respects, too, it is detrimental for the forestry industry if there is a situation of over-production. The whole management of forestry is affected by this. Thinning out and clearfelling is delayed and that has a detrimental effect on the whole situation. I maintain that this over-production could really be detrimental to our timber industry because—as the hon. member for Orange Grove noted—it could discourage people from extending their plantations.

I think the first step to be taken now should be taken by the timber industry itself. They should organize themselves into a proper marketing organization. We have learned from experience with other agricultural products that if one does not have an efficient marketing organization which can handle the advertising and other functions, for example export promotion, one cannot have good marketing.

However, new uses for timber will have to be found and I am sure that the department will be able to help with research in this regard. I think it is essential too that the Forestry Board would make more funds available for research so that more markets could be found. It is not easy to find a foothold for our timber in the world markets. Prices are low, and often timber even has to be exported at a loss. However we succeeded last year in exporting timber to Réunion, the Seychelles, Mauritius, Israel, Canada, Iran, Great Britain and even European countries. Hon. members will note that one of the countries is Canada, a country which produces a tremendous amount of timber itself. Those producers are nearer to the market and enjoy established trade contacts. That makes it very difficult for us. Something I want to stress is that the Government should ensure that the quality of timber we export is irreproachable and of the very highest. I am told that most of the exporters refused to submit themselves to the SABS trade quality mark. I wonder whether that should not be made compulsory. The Department of Forestry by Government proclamation issued certain standards on 30 December 1977. I wonder whether they are being applied strictly enough, however. If we want to retain our overseas markets, we shall have to look at quality.

The hon. member for Orange Grove said: “There are no incentives.” The Government has already taken a number of steps to encourage exporters. The State forest plantations, for example, give a discount of 25% to contractors who buy timber from them and export it and allow up to 60% of the contract to be exported. That is already a very major concession.

There is also the subsidy of approximately R½ million on railage paid by the Department of Commerce in order to encourage exports. I just hope the private sector in the industry make full use of these facilities made available to them. I want to point out that great success has already been achieved in this regard. I want to refer in particular to what the South African Timber Growers’ Association has done through the Central Timber Co-op in connection with the export of wattle chips to Japan.

I want to congratulate them on their being awarded the certificate of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs for exceptional achievement in export. I have a copy of it. I want to congratulate them on their fine efforts to obtain a market for their people.

I think a fund should be set up within the industry for subsidizing exports. Private people can do more in this regard. If they develop a market and suffer losses, they could be covered by such a reserve fund.

There is a need, too, for a second chipping factory in South Africa. I think the hon. the Minister should consider the possible erection of a chipping factory in the Eastern Transvaal. Perhaps a pulp mill can also be erected there. I know this involves a lot of money, but I think it should be considered.

The private industry which made a start with exports, is doing a tremendous job. In the past year exports increased by 25%. Last year we already earned R130,5 million from exports.

It is true that a lot of timber still has to be imported, and perhaps measures could be considered to prune imports even further. Last year timber to the value of R155 million was imported. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about the second most beautiful thing in the world; the flora of the southern coast region of the continent. The Department of Forestry is in control of and has at its disposal thousands of hectares of land along the Southern Cape coast. I want to say something about the flora of that region, its enemies and its advantages. If one goes for a drive from Gordon’s Bay past Betties Bay, across the Palmiet River, past Lake Marina, through Hermanus, past Mossel Bay to George, one appreciates what the poet Wordsworth had in mind when, standing on Westminster Bridge, he said—

This part of the world is the part known to us as the habitat of the Cape “fynbos”. One finds here the greatest variety of plants per hectare in the world. This is a real paradise for the botanist, since it is the habitat of the mimetus, the meadow-sweet (vleiroos), the everlasting and the protea. Their greatest enemies are veld fires and bush intrusion.

In 1825 the scholar Teenstra came to the Cape and travelled from Hemel-en-Aarde to Hermanus in a horse and cart. This is what he wrote—

A biological explosion has been taking place over the last few decades and botanists maintain that little or nothing of our indigenous flora in this region will still be there in a 100 year’s time if this problem is not dealt with. The Port Jackson, the rooikrans and the black wattle were imported from Australia approximately 150 years ago to stabilize the wind-blown sand and to assist the tanning industry. Their natural enemies in that part of the world from where they had been imported, were not to be found here, and consequently they spread very rapidly. In Australia insects consume the seeds, while here the seeds all remain fertile. Research workers maintain that up to 14 000 seedlings per square metre have been counted under one wattle bush. They can lie there for 50 years and then still germinate. That makes their extermination virtually impossible. There are known cases where the soil has been cleared by hand for 13 consecutive years, but the seedlings still kept on coming up. The indigenous Fynbos is unable to stand up to these intruders, because it needs all the sunlight it can get for itself. After a veld fire, as we all know, the seeds of these intruders germinate like hair on a dog. There will have to be urgent research on biological or chemical counter-measures; otherwise this asset, our Fynbos, could be lost altogether in the future.

Fortunately many of these plants are cultivated artificially today. That is some relief with a view to their future. The cultivation of proteas is becoming established. The export market already runs into more or less R3,5 million per annum. There are approximately 600 registered growers, almost all of them in the Cape Province. Of the more than 300 species of proteas, almost a dozen have been identified which are longlasting and flower between September and April. I mentioned the figure 300, but I believe there are more than 300 species of this plant.

Because it might interest hon. members, I want to quote from Greek mythology to show where the protea gets its name. Proteas was the prophetic old man of the sea. It is said he was the son of the god of the sea. Perhaps that is why the protea does not grow far from the sea. This man was not only omniscient, but could also take on any imaginable form he pleased. He had answers to all questions. He knew the past and the future, but he was niggardly with his knowledge. In order to get information out of him, he had to be tied up. One of his 350 daughters—for he was a rich man too—by the name of Eidothea, betrayed him by telling his secret to Menelaus, who held him fast with the aid of seals, and in so doing released the south wind to bring Proteus to his—Menelaus’—house.

The most popular and best-known species of the protea of this region is the cynaroides—which, incidentally is our national flower—the barbigera, the compacta, the grandiceps, the neriifolia and the serruria florida. The latter is also known as the Blushing Bride. I wonder whether that is not perhaps the most beautiful thing in the world.

Because proteas can grow in the most unusable and sour soil, they should often be cultivated high up in the mountains. The protea also requires soil which is very well-drained. Veld and mountain fires are of course among the protea’s greatest enemies. The contribution of the Department of Forestry and its staff in preventing and combating veld and mountain fires in these areas, is greatly appreciated. I wonder, however, whether it is not time to consider more modern methods. Hon. members who may have helped fight a veld fire, will know that it is one of the most dangerous and demanding jobs on earth.

Then of course there are travellers and holiday-makers who, particularly during the summer months, visit our coastal towns and holiday resorts. Very often they stop along the roads for a braaivleis. Then there are also those people who bum garbage on vacant plots and simply leave while the fire is still burning. Incidents like these have already resulted in large and extensive areas in this region being destroyed by fire and laid waste. This makes one wonder whether an effort should not be made to persuade local authorities to improve their mutual co-operation and by better co-ordination to try to preserve this great asset for our descendants.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove was quite correct when he said that our forestry industry in South Africa was at present saddled with an over-production problem. But I seriously differ with the hon. member when he blames the over-production on the hon. the Minister and his predecessor. Surely the hon. member for Orange Grove ought to know that this is not the real reason. Surely the hon. member ought to know that the primary reason is the general recessionary conditions we have experienced in recent years—not only in South Africa, but throughout the world. The hon. member knows, or ought to know, that ten years ago the prospects in the forestry industry were so favourable that all who could, bought land and started planting trees.

Furthermore, the hon. member for Orange Grove also ought to know that the large timber processing companies, the paper factories etc., themselves started planting forests on an unprecedented scale.

I merely mention a few of the factors which caused the present over-production. One cannot simply single out this one reason and then still make the wrong assumption, as the hon. member did. The recessionary conditions over the past few years have had an effect in several fields. Reference has already been made to the fact that the building industry is experiencing a slump and that there has been a smaller demand for timber. It affected the growers of ordinary timber and of sawtimber, and it immediately affected the sawmills as well. There was also a slump in the mining industry. Hon. members are aware that the prices of our metals and minerals on world markets have shown a downward trend over the past few years. That also applies to gold. That immediately gave rise to lower production in our mines. The growers of hardwood, which is used for mine props, were in turn affected. The manufacturers of timber products for the mining industry were also affected. As far as our timber milling industry and paper mills are concerned, the position is that we are already supplying virtually 100% of our own requirements. We have also had the phenomenon that the consumption of newsprint in our country has declined in recent years because newspapers have become smaller. That immediately affected the growers of softwood, which is used for the pulp industry. The pulp factories were also affected, because they had to dispose of the over-production which we ourselves did not need, on the export market. The result is that at present we have a large surplus of timber and timber products in our country—in both the private sector and the public sector. Even the Department of Forestry has more timber than it can dispose of. This has caused instability in the entire industry, because the growers are battling with a long-term investment. A tree must grow for a number of years before it is marketable. The processers also have problems, because they have invested a lot of capital in their processing plant. There are different possibilities as regards solving this problem. Some have already been mentioned by other hon. members.

One solution is the stimulation of a more extensive use of timber and timber products. I have in mind the construction of timber houses, for example. We should also give attention to the development of new uses for wood. One possible use is the manufacture of fuel from timber, and another is the encouragement of new processing factories with a view to exports. I just want to exchange a few thoughts on this latter possibility.

I want to plead that the establishment of a new paper factory in South Africa should be afforded urgent attention. This is an enterprise which is really appropriate to the private sector, but I think a team effort will be necessary to make such a factory a reality. We have already built up a good export market for paper and pulp, and I believe that it can be further expanded, because we have all the necessary raw materials. Our timber resources are more than sufficient. Statistics show that the gap between the consumption and the estimated availability of pulpwood in particular is wide, and is growing, and indications are that for many years to come, we shall continue to have a greater supply of this type of timber than we can use with our existing factory capacity. The raw materials for such a new factory therefore present no problems. However, because the establishment of a new paper factory is a very major and very expensive undertaking, we shall—as I have said—have to make a team effort to establish such a factory. Experts say that a minimum amount of approximately R250 million is required in capital for the construction and commissioning of such a factory. Apart from that, it is necessary to consider the infrastructure necessary for such a factory. In this connection, I refer to three aspects: Sufficient water, sufficient electric power and proper railway facilities.

Such a team effort will have to involve the private sector as well as the public sector. The private sector will have to supply the capital and also the expertise and technical know-how for the construction and operation of such a factory. The public sector will have to supply the infrastructure, and for that, the co-operation of different bodies is absolutely indispensable.

I am referring to the S.A. Railways as one of those bodies, because the transport aspects of such a factory are of very great importance. I think that in order to assist the timber industry, the Railways ought to be persuaded to grant rebates on the transport of timber and timber products, not only in connection with the transport of the completed product from the factories to the harbours, but also—and here I have in mind the consideration of aid to the growers—on the costs of transport of their product from the farms or plantations to the processing factories. It is true that our growers are spread over a very large area. Many of them are situated far from processing factories.

The Departments of Commerce and Industry will also have to assist—perhaps via the IDC. Those departments will also be able to assist with the stimulation of exports and the establishment of new export markets.

I want to make an appeal to both the private sector and the public sector to devote very serious attention to this matter, because the benefits to our country will be enormous. In the first place, we shall attract money from foreign investors which will then be invested in our country. In the second place, we can earn valuable foreign exchange by increased exportation of timber and timber products. Thirdly, we can get rid of at least a part, if not all, of our over-production. Fourthly and lastly, we can bring new hope to thousands of growers of timber and timber products throughout the country.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ermelo referred to something which is absolutely crucial to the whole industry in South Africa. I am referring especially to his remarks with regard to transport costs, because the whole problem is that a great part of our production is locality bound. One of our greatest bottle-necks is that in the Eastern Transvaal there is at present a thousand hectares of timber which is almost ready for marketing, but which cannot go to a factory at a price which is profitable for the grower.

†I think the hon. member as well as the hon. the Minister will support me when I say that the whole structure of the timber industry is being threatened by the fact that railage costs are rendering the timber industry uneconomic in very great stretches of South Africa. We have a basic contradiction in the policy of the State. Facilities are to be made available by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure in view of the fact that the aim is to afforest 50 000 ha per year. We are told, as we have been in the past, that such afforestation is absolutely essential if this country is to be able to cope with the demand we expect to have in the future roundabout the end of this century. There is the other problem that to move that timber to a market is impossible at prevailing railage rates. I think that in that respect the hon. member was absolutely correct. We are going to have to find a balance and somehow or other the hon. the Minister is going to have to make a plan together with the Minister of Transport in order that timber can be railed from, for instance, the eastern Transvaal to Mandini. It is an absolute physical impossibility to make a profit out of that kind of operation. The hon. member mentioned the capital investment required to put up an alternative pulp mill in the eastern Transvaal. The relevant figure is of such a nature that I do not think that the amount of timber there at the moment justifies that investment. However, one cannot convince the farmers that they should go on planting timber in order to assure the people wishing to make that investment of their supply. One of the things that concerns me more than anything else is that, according to the department’s report, in sector after sector the programmes of planting, thinning, conservation and so on are being affected by the economies that have been introduced. As a result we are falling further and further behind with the programmes and particularly with the planting programme that is going to be required if a capital investment is to be made.

I should like to take the matter of the locality based nature of our industry one step further. Virtually all the sawmills are tied to a particular plantation or a set of plantations in a particular area. One finds that timber that could be on the market for sawmill production—I come back to the question of railage rates—cannot in fact be marketed at the prevailing rates charged by the Railways Administration.

In the department’s annual report one finds that in paragraph 6.1.1, “State Revenue Account”, on page 49, it is stated that—

Then, in paragraph 6.2.1 it is stated that—

However, in paragraph 6.2.2 one reads that—

That therefore amounts to nearly R4 million whereas it is stated in paragraph 6.2.1 that the decrease in revenue amounted to only R941 623. I do not quite know where the difference comes in. What other revenue was there to reduce that apparent difference of R4 million to R941 623? I do not understand the figures as they are set out there and I should like the hon. the Minister to explain to me what is going on there.

I want to say that anyone who was present yesterday in the Other Place when we were discussing the Water Affairs Vote, will agree that the Vote of Forestry is one which par excellence lends itself to discussion in that Chamber. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I shall do everything I can to see that this Vote is taken over there next year so that we will be able to discuss it for a longer time. I do not think that the time we have at our disposal to devote to Forestry in this Chamber on this occasion does justice to a department which is a revenue earning department. It brought R23 million into the public coffers and this department has a profound effect, certainly on the whole of my constituency, on large areas of the country and on the farming community as a whole.

A plan has been set out delimiting areas suitable for forestry. There are areas in my constituency where forestry has been prohibited by the department for the reason that the water flow must be managed. I refer particularly to the catchment area of the Umgeni River because so many people in Natal depend on the flow of that river. This is the sort of activity which is undertaken by this department and which I regard as being of tremendous importance. The department is now falling behind in its work. I want to say again to the hon. the Minister that I wish it were possible to have this Vote discussed by one of the standing Select Committees so that we could sit down with the officials and go through the report in detail. In the back of the report statistics are given, for instance with regard to the thinning programme. The hon. member for Caledon whill be pleased to see that the area infested by wattle, hakea, etc., in the western Cape is 103 000 ha. The area which was cleared last year was only 9 000 ha, and that was done at a cost of R70 000. It is quite apparent to me that we are actually falling behind in areas such as these. We are not able to keep ahead of the problem which is developing. One must also consider the question of driftsand control, where we had to cut down. Once one lets this sort of thing get out of hand, it will overflow and become a bigger and bigger problem which is going to cost us more and more in the end before one is ever able to get control of it again.

We face a situation in the timber industry—as everybody here has quite rightly said—brought about by a severe down-turn in the economy and resulting in a down-turn in the industry as a whole. What we are finding—and I think it is of significance—is the increasing strength of the co-operative movement in the marketing of timber.

This is something which I think is inevitable. We are going to find more and more of the smaller growers organizing themselves. I want to emphasize and stress again the importance of the small grower. If we are going to afforest 50 000 ha a year, it is not, in my opinion, to the advantage of the State that whole farms and entire tracts and districts should be bought up and afforested. What we want to do is to retain good agricultural land in the hands of agriculture. Where there is land which is not suitable for agriculture, that land should be planted with timber. This brings us back to the theory which we have been talking about for years, namely the wood-lot farmer, where the stake of the private farmer in the industry is on a small scale, a scale which he can manage and plan efficiently. I think the co-operative organization is the answer to marketing on that scale. It is quite apparent that we will have something to say about this later on when the Forest Amendment Bill comes before the House. The question of marketing by a large number of people as opposed to purchasing by a small number of organizations, is a problem which is of particular concern to everyone who is involved in the timber industry. I think the Japanese contract which was mentioned by the hon. member for Humansdorp and which was negotiated by Central Timber Co-op., is a shining example of what free enterprise can do, where a group of people—private farmers—who realized that they had a problem, came together to put their minds to the problem. This resulted in their going out and looking for the business. I think this is going to be the answer. I do not believe that the business is in a permanent state of down-turn. The economy will pick up and, likewise, the industry will also pick up in the future.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River referred to the annual report of the department. I should like to endorse what he said, and also to express my thanks and appreciation to the Secretary and the members of the department for the informative report submitted to us this session. As the hon. member for Mooi River indicated, the informativeness of the report is reflected in the detailed and comprehensive exposition of data on the activities of the department. We congratulate the Secretary and those who assisted him with the drafting of the report very sincerely.

I also hasten to state that the department deserves to be regarded with pride and gratitude by all who love the soil of South Africa because it is a department which is still developing in respect of the forestry industry in our country. The Department of Forestry enjoys great appreciation, because it is an undertaking which was not only established to supply our industries with timber, but also to preserve the finest scenery in our country. This sense of conservation applies especially in respect of our indigenous forests. Over the years, it has been the practice that non-indigenous tree species were planted for commercial use; but in the process, the need for the preservation of indigenous forests, has never been neglected. Together with the project for the preservation of our indigenous tree species, the preservation of game and bird species in our State forests has also made progress. It is very probably that most of the bush-buck in our country are encountered in State forests. Apart from the indigenous forests, the game and the bird species, the flora of our State forests is also being preserved. Natural flora is being protected against being invader plant species because our indigenous flora is a great asset to our country. Here and there, indigenous flora must make place for plantation tree species—as indeed happens where lands are made available for the cultivation of maize and wheat. It is also encouraging to know that only about 15% of the total area of all State forests are planted to foreign trees, and that the afforestation of additional land within the boundaries of the State forests which have been identified for this purpose will never exceed 19%. That entails that this policy of the Department of Forestry preserves and develops our State forests as one of the most valuable natural assets of our country—an asset which cannot be assessed in terms of money.

For that reason, the need has arisen to make the best of this natural scenery accessible to the inhabitants of our country in a controlled way. In this connection, I should like to mention in particular the making accessible of this lovely scenery to the youth of South Africa—the young people who are always thirsting for adventure. To realize this aspiration, the idea arose approximately 10 years ago of establishing hiking trails in the various parts of our country. A suitable monument ought to be erected in honour of those people to whom the idea of open-air recreation in our State forests occurred. The inauguration of the first hiking trail took place during May 1973, when the Eastern Transvaal forest hiking trail was opened and was named by the present Secretary for Forestry as the Fanie Botha Forest Hiking Trail. This hiking trail has become so popular that the number of visitors increased from 500 during 1973-’74 to 10 900 during the past year under review. Over the years, other hiking trails have been established in the different regions, and according to statistics, these hiking trails are being used to an increasing extent by the inhabitants of our country. I am thinking, for example, of the Otter Hiking Trail which was opened in 1974-’75, and started with 2 720 visitor-nights, which increased to 8 700 visitor-nights during the past year. During 1975-’76, the Soutpansberg Hiking Trail was commissioned with 1 263 visitor-nights during that year as against 6 500 during the past year. During 1976-’77, the Hottentots Holland Hiking Trail was opened by Mrs. Tini Vorster. The number of visitor-nights for this hiking trail was 371 for that year as against the 7 800 during the past year. The Blyderivierspoort Hiking Trail was opened during the past year. Already, 11 900 visitor-nights have been spent on this hiking trail. During 1976-’77, the Outeniqua Hiking Trail was opened by the hon. the Minister of Forestry. In the beginning, 3 900 visitor-nights were spent there as against the 12 400 during the past year. The Bushbuck Trail was commissioned during 1976-’77 and initially accounted for 422 visitor-nights as against the 2 400 during the past year. Finally, we have the Elephant Trail, with 398 visitor-nights during its opening year 1975-’76 as against the 2 600 of the past year.

Except in the case of the latter two, i.e. the Bushbuck Trail and the Elephant Trail, overnight huts were built on all the other hiking trails as and when funds became available. In the case of the Outeniqua Hiking Trail and the Hottentots Holland Hiking Trail, overnight huts for Coloureds were also built. To the extent to which funds are available and will still become available, still more overnight huts for Coloureds will be built. They will be of the same standard as the overnight huts built for Whites. Unfortunately it must be mentioned that, according to the available statistics, the demand for hiking trails on the part of the Coloureds is actually on the decline. In the case of the Outeniqua Hiking Trail which was opened to Coloureds during 1976-’77, there were 122 occupation nights of the various huts during that year. During this year, the number decreased to only 36.

The idea is to build a chain of hiking trails from the Western Cape to the Soutspansberg in the north so that thousands of South Africans can find healthy recreation on these hiking trails and so that they may learn to know nature. An estimated amount of R1½ million is required for such a project. In the present budget, only R88 000 was voted for that purpose. If this amount can be regarded as a criterion it will take 15 years to complete the project. Has the time not arrived to appropriate a larger amount for such a deserving project? Perhaps there can be a stiff contribution—or, as clergyman say, a “mild” contribution, from the Department of Sport and Recreation.

However, it is not sufficient merely to build hiking trails. There should also be instructions on hiking requirements. Many hikers are inexperienced and do not know what is required for such a venture, e.g. the type of shoes and other apparel that should be worn, overnight amenities, instructions, etc. I should like to stress that the time has arrived for the publication of a guide for hikers. In my view, the publication of a guide has become essential in view of the rapidly increasing number of hikers. I therefore wish to plead very strongly here for such a publication.

The control of hiking trails has become such an extensive task that in 1975, by way of an addition to the Forest Act, a Hiking Trail Council was established to deal with this matter. Funds for this council are made available by a grant from the Department of Forestry, from revenue obtained from the leasing of huts, and from donations from well-wishers and well-disposed organizations. I want to ask: Is the contribution to the Hiking Trail Fund not an excellent opportunity of helping to build a heritage for the youth of South Africa? We have an excellent opportunity here to establish a heritage of unprecedented beauty and lasting value by means of a contribution to this fund.

In conclusion, I should like to plead for a hiking trail from the Katberg in the east to the Bosberg, Tandjiesberg and Kamdeboo Mountains in the west … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have heard a great deal today about the problem of a timber surplus which our country is experiencing at present. However, it is a fact that in the times in which we are living and also in future, not only our country but the world as a whole is to an increasing extent going to be confronted with an energy problem, especially in connection with fuel supplies as the oil resources of the world become depleted. It is known that during the Second World War, Germany in particular, but also Sweden, manufactured a fuel called ethyl alcohol from timber on a fairly large scale. I do not know whether they were able to do this economically, but they did it because the circumstances in their particular case made it a necessity. We also know that other countries of the world and particularly Brazil, have already established sugar plantations on a large scale with this object in mind. We learn that in Brazil, millions of hectares have been planted to sugar cane—not to be sold as such, but to be processed into ethyl alcohol to supplement the dire fuel shortage. We have also been told that it is safe to add up to 20% of ethyl alcohol to ordinary petrol without any adverse effects on the automobile engines in use at present. We also know that in the USA, research is being done to ascertain whether it is possible to manufacture an automobile engine which can run exclusively on ethyl alcohol as fuel.

In view of the fact that we are faced with a surplus of timber—in our country as well— and that in future we shall, to an increasing extent, have to deal with a fuel shortage, I want to make an appeal for serious consideration to be given to the possibility—and I am not putting it any higher than that—of also manufacturing ethyl alcohol fuel from wood. According to a rough estimate—so I have been informed—it is possible to manufacture up to 1 000 megalitres of ethyl alcohol every year from waste timber such as tree branches, sawdust, and all the wood which, at present, has no economic value whatsoever—wood which goes to waste and, in fact, has a negative value because It has to be burned. Apart from that, I want to refer to another possibility. In certain parts of the world, especially in Brazil, there is large-scale research and planning in connection with the manufacturing of ethyl alcohol from sugar cane. In our country, these two projects can be combined so that a factory which manufactures ethyl alcohol from sugar cane, can also use timber for that purpose. It may be possible to accomplish that in our country, because we find that most areas which are suitable for sugar plantations, are adjacent to those areas which are utilized for forestry. Since we have—in the past and even at present—been spending millions of rands on a search for oil, I think it would also be justifiable to spend a reasonable amount on research on possible methods of utilizing what nature has given us, namely our plant-life, for the manufacturing of the fuel which our country needs so badly.

Mr. Chairman, although that is not the intention, the name of the department under discussion creates the impression that its activities and functions are confined to commercial afforestation, processing of timber, and related research.

The fact is, however, that apart from these activities, the department of forestry is also engaged in numerous non-commercial activities. The conservation of mountain catchment areas is, for example, an important task and function of the department. With a view to the optimum supply of clean, silt-free water, the department also controls and conserves State-owned mountain areas which have been identified as water catchment areas.

The Forest Act also authorizes the Minister of Forestry to set aside, control and protect certain portions of State forests as nature reserves, protection forests, or wilderness areas. At present there are 29 declared nature reserves in State forests, with a total area of approximately 7 500 ha. The intention is, in due course, also to conserve entire landscapes in a virgin natural condition.

The policy of the Department of Forestry is also to make provision for open-air recreation in State forests. In terms of this policy, the department has proceeded to create a national hiking trail system, and the existing hiking trails are maintained and controlled by the department The conservation of wild life and indigenous flora in State forests is yet another of the tasks of the department, and active steps are taken to protect the natural flora against invader-plants.

In conclusion, I refer in this connection to the reclamation and combating of driftsand— something which the department has been engaged in for years now.

If all these activities of the Department of Forestry are taken into account, it appears as if the name of the department does not do justice to the variety and scope of its functions and activities. I therefore suggest that a change of name would not be inappropriate.

In connection with the combating of invader-plants, I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the threat which hakea poses to the indigenous flora of the Western Cape mountain areas in particular. A recent survey revealed that no less than 384 400 ha in the Western Cape was infested with hakea. It may be asked: What is hakea? Hakea is a hardy, thorny and bushy shrub which can reach a height of up to two or three metres. Economically and otherwise it is a useless shrub—one which stifles and supplants all other plant growth in its immediate vicinity. The plant seems to have no natural enemies in this country. The position is that when the plant is chopped down or destroyed by fire, its seed-buds open and the seeds are dehisced. As many as 64 000 seed-buds have already been found on a single hakea bush. Hon. members can therefore appreciate how serious the proliferation of this plant is. It has been calculated that on a single hectare, as many as 75 million small seedlings of this plant have been encountered.

At present, the Department of Forestry is actively engaged in the combating of this plant in mountain catchment areas. The combating is done by chopping down these shrubs. A year later, the area is burned, and the seedlings which have germinated in the meantime, are hopefully—or presumably— destroyed by fire. This burning process must be repeated every three years over a period of 10 years before such an area can be regarded as free of hakea. Recently, there have also been experiments with biological methods, but the biological combating actually means nothing more than that the proliferation and propagation of this shrub is contained somewhat. It does not exterminate the plant where it is already established.

From what I have just mentioned, hon. members will appreciate that the combating of hakea is an expensive undertaking. Often, the value of the land on which it is found, does not justify the cost of combating it. Furthermore, hakea often grows in places which are almost inaccessible and can only be eradicated by way of a concentrated and sustained effort.

The problem is also that approximately 26% of the hakea infestation in the Western Cape is encountered on private property outside mountain catchment areas. There is no less than 100 843 ha of hakea-infested land outside mountain catchment areas. Unless the hakea is also exterminated there, these areas will remain a threat to the adjoining land and mountain catchment areas, because seed will again spread from there.

However, the department may not operate on private property outside declared mountain catchment areas, and therefore has no right to assist in the combating of hakea on such private property. On account of the reasons already mentioned in connection with the eradication of hakea, it can, however, hardly be expected of the owners of infested land to exterminate and combat hakea effectively and successfully on their land. Financial aid, and also active physical assistance by the Department of Forestry, is indispensable for that.

I therefore suggest that authorizing legislation by considered in order to enable the Department of Forestry to assist in the eradication and combating of hakea on private property outside proclaimed catchment areas as well.

In conclusion, I refer to the task of the department to combat driftsand and to reclaim areas already covered with driftsand. In this connection, I want to express my regrets about the fact that according to the annual report of the Department of Forestry, evidently no progress has been made with driftsand reclamation in the Garcia area. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to give a high priority this year to the reclamation and combating of driftsand in the stated area. The hon. the Minister has, indeed, told me on a previous occasion—during the discussion of another Vote—that I have my priorities and he has his priorities. Thus, every one of us has his own priorities. But I was pleased to learn last night—it was during the debate on the other Vote—that the hon. the Minister’s priorities and my own now more or less correspond. I therefore trust that this will soon be the case in this respect as well. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have now come to the end of a particularly interesting and informative discussion. The discussion covered a very wide field; nevertheless I agree with the hon. member for Mooi River that we did not really have enough time for a comprehensive discussion of the problems and the tasks of the Department of Forestry. I shall not object if we are able to reflect on these problems more satisfactorily and in greater depth next year, perhaps in the Other Place—I know that the Leader of the House is having problems getting everything organized—and with the co-operation of the Opposition parties in a peaceful atmosphere.

I want to convey my appreciation to the hon. members who participated in this discussion. I shall reply briefly to their contributions in a moment. Firstly, though, I want to draw attention to the fact that the Forestry Vote should be seen in its correct perspective because of the department’s wide variety of tasks, as the hon. member for Mossel Bay indicated, and also because it is responsible for a strategic product which is being produced in this country and with which we are at present experiencing marketing problems. People are inclined to think of timber as being the only product of forestry, but there are other strategic by-products of timber production as well. In this connection what I have in mind in particular is our paper products. I also want to draw attention to the very important proportions which the forestry industry has assumed. Brief reference has already been made to this, but I nevertheless want to ask hon. members to take another careful look at the annual report of the department.

†The hon. member for Mooi River pointed out certain inconsistencies in the annual report. I have until now not been able to sort the matter out, so I should like to congratulate the hon. member on bringing the matter to my attention. I have asked the department to go into the matter, but even they have until now not been able to find out exactly where the problem lies. It just does not add up. I shall let the hon. member know later on what the reason is for the inconsistency. I do not know whether the hon. member for Mooi River managed to study the whole report; I do not think he could have, since he spent so much time studying the White Papers tabled by the Department of Water Affairs! Nevertheless, he tried to get down to the basic figures in the report, and I want to thank him for pointing out this inconsistency to us.

*I want to try briefly to bring the value of the forestry industry to the attention of hon. members. The hon. member for Orange Grove said that there had been encouragement. I do not think there was any direct encouragement as such. It was brought to the attention of the general public that forestry could be a particularly important and stable industry, but apart from the planting of trees with a view to their aesthetic value and for protection on farms, there was no direct encouragement to plant trees. However, I do not want to offer any excuses for that. I think it was a good step, for this industry is a longterm industry. I want to draw attention to the fact that the value of forestry product exports amounted to R85 million in 1975, as against almost R105 million in 1976 and more than R130 million in 1977. We expect this figure to rise even further as a result of the surpluses we have. The forestry industry therefore makes a considerable contribution to the earning of foreign exchange. It is also conducive to stability, and it is very important that we take cognizance of this. Unfortunately, however, it is true that we are still importing forestry products. In 1975 such products to the value of R168 million were imported. Approximately R35 million of that amount was in respect of products from Swaziland, which are of course imported free of charge. We cannot consider these to be ordinary imports. Nevertheless it seems unnecessary that we should import so many other products. In 1976 the value of these imported products rose to R185 million, although it fortunately declined again during the next year to R155 million. Something will have to be done in this connection, for we really do have sufficient timber to take the place of these products. But we do not yet have the necessary investment, nor perhaps the necessary expertise, to be able to do it. A ray of light to which attention should be drawn is that in this period of over-production and marketing problems I am nevertheless able to announce that at its meeting on the 11th of this month, the wattle bark industry increased the wattle bark quota considerably. For a long time the annual quota had fluctuated between 60% and 70% of the basic quota, and was initially set at 70% for the year 1 August 1977 to 31 July 1978. It soon became apparent that an increase was necessary to compensate for over-production the previous year, when the stripping season was cut short as a result of dry weather conditions, and the quota was then raised to 81%. In the meantime the world market for vegetable tanning substances improved to such an extent that it was possible to readjust the quota to 101%. I feel that this is exceptionally good news under the circumstances.

Then I want to point out that during the discussion of the Forestry Vote last year, I gave an indication of the problems with pulpwood and sawtimber surpluses which were being experienced by the forestry industry. I ventured to assess the course of events during the next 30 years on the basis of a re-appraisal of the prognosis studies carried out in 1972. I concede at once that it is dangerous to try to assess or make estimates so far in advance, but it has to be done for this is an industry which requires long-term investments. Since then there has been no material change in the situation in the industry, and the industry is probably experiencing the worst recession since the depression in the ’thirties. Although it would be unrealistic to expect a rapid recovery, there are nevertheless indications that the lowest levels could probably have been reached now. However, I have not so far had any reason to arrive at a different conclusion concerning the future prospects which I sketched last year. I want this very clear.

The present over-supply of roundwood which is the collective result of the levelling-off in the economy, the building up of sawtimber surpluses because exploitation in the past was on a lower level than the average annual growth of sawtimber stands and the decline in the demand for mining timber since 1974, are admittedly causing serious cash flow problems and in some cases forest cultivation problems. The hon. members also referred to that. The industry is therefore compelled to turn to turn to the export market for roundtimber in the short term to find a market for these surpluses. Various applications from the private sector for the export of roundtimber for periods of up to 13 years, have already been approved in principle, and negotiations with overseas buyers are continuing.

If the expected growth rate of approximately 6% in the demand for pulpwood were to be maintained, the potential surplus of pulpwood which exists at present, while imports of pulp and paper are still occurring, may turn into shortages after 1981.

I think it is very important that we see these matters in perspective. The shortages which are expected to arise emphasize the necessity for the expansion of afforestation with a view to pulpwood production. Therefore we cannot take fright now and run away from an industry because there are temporary problems. The trees which we plant now will not even be mature when the expected shortage occurs in approximately three or four years time. In this conclusion it is presumed that additional local pulping capacity will be available as from 1981. Hon. members referred to this as well.

The pulp and paper industry throughout the entire world is in a state of recession. The South African pulp industry did not remain unscathed, and the products of this industry are, perhaps with a few exceptions, in oversupply. The prospects for the export of these products are by no means bright, because we are not able to compete with the uneconomic prices at which pulp is at present being offered on the world market. I want to point out that it is principally the Swedes who are responsible for this situation because enormous supplies of pulp have been stockpiled there and the Swedish Government no longer sees its way clear to financing that process.

Despite the present circumstances it is still essential that local pulping capacity should be expanded with a view to the future. The problem, however, is that capital investment in a new pulping plant—the hon. member for Ermelo referred to this. When the economy of the size of the plant plays a predominant part, or even in the expansion of existing pulp factories, the capital requirement is of such a magnitude that private organizations will find it difficult to raise sufficient funds and financial support from the authorities in the form of low-interest rate loans will consequently be required. Unfortunately it is the case that timber surpluses first have to accumulate before it will be possible to establish new pulping capacity.

Another aspect which causes concern is that in spite of the marketing problems in the timber industry, pulp and paper products to the value of about R130 million will still have to be imported annually. The import replacement of these products can make an important contribution to stimulating the timber industry, enhancing employment opportunities and alleviating the balance of payments position. It is realized that considerable investment in additional equipment will be necessary before a meaningful contribution to import replacement can be made, but the matter is deemed to be of so much importance that the pulping industries have already been requested to investigate and consider these matters.

As a result of the limited market for sawn structural timber which was caused by the recession in the building industry, fierce competition among the saw-millers has prevailed during the past twelve to fifteen months. The hon. member for Humansdorp, as well as the hon. member for Orange Grove referred to this, and reference was also made to a report which appeared in the Sunday Times in April, a report which I also read. I want hon. members to listen very carefully now.

As I have said, fierce competition has prevailed among saw-millers during the past 12 to 15 months, to such an extent that sawn structural timber was being offered, directly and indirectly, at discounts of as much as 35% to timber merchants and timber agents in order to find and hold on to an outlet for such timber on a swindling market. The result was that those saw-millers who resorted to price cutting, expanded their share of the limited market at the expense of those saw-millers who abided by the agreement. Under the circumstances the Timber Marketing Bureau had no alternative but to repeal the provision for the maintenance of minimum prices so that saw-millers could compete freely in an open market as far as prices were concerned. If I understood the hon. member for Orange Grove correctly, he regarded that as the ideal.

Rebates of this order might still have been justified if the saw-mills in the country had been producing at full capacity, but it is known that at this time they were only able to utilize approximately 55% of their production capacity. As was to be expected, the result of these practices, in view of the prevailing circumstances, was that saw-millers operated at a loss or at an extremely low return on utilized capital during this period.

If the existing saw-mill capacity, as was suggested last year, will exceed the country’s sawtimber requirements for the next 10 to 15 years, there might be some justification for closing down inefficient saw-mills or sawmills situated in the vicinity of others that are able to process the available sawlogs. Under the present circumstances, however, it will be the saw-mills which do not have the financial means to carry them over a prolonged period of subnormal prices which will be forced to close down. This is unfortunately what will happen if we allow this situation to take its normal course. Saw-mills which are awkwardly situated will have to close down, and it will only be possible to keep those sawmills which are supported by powerful capital groups in operation. Therefore, it is not a question of efficiency; it is a question of the man who has the most money being able to hold out the longest.

It would undoubtedly have had disastrous consequences for the forestry industry if this situation had been allowed to continue indefinitely. During June of last year I was therefore compelled, in the interests of the industry, to request the saw-mill industry to resolve the problem and to point out that if a satisfactory solution was not possible on a voluntary basis, there would unfortunately be no alternative but to consider measures to control sawtimber sales within the framework of existing legislation. As a result the saw-millers decided during December 1977 to enter into a mutual agreement in terms of which they undertook to sell sawn structural timber at, prices and rebates, that had been agreed upon and determined in advance, to timber merchants and timber agents to effect stability in the timber trade in this way. The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to this, as did the article in the Sunday Times. This agreement was signed by 99,9% of the saw-millers, and the timber merchants and timber agents were invited to become co-signatories in order to share in this way in the agreement on rebates.

What happens to dealers who do not sign?

You asked: “What happened to dealers?” They did not pass this on to the consumers. That is what happened. I do not think the dealers did their bit to counteract this problem.

Mr. Chairman, my question to the hon. the Minister was actually: What happens to dealers if they refuse to sign this agreement? There were claims that dealers who refused to sign are denied the price advantages that the saw-millers give.

Unfortunately I cannot answer that question as I do not know what happens in practice as far as dealers are concerned.

*I am mentioning this agreement between the saw-millers and the timber merchants because I was instrumental in their reaching that agreement. I made it my task to do so because I wanted stability in the industry. The sole purpose of this agreement between the saw-millers, the timber merchants and the timber agents is to eliminate price manipulation on the manufacturing level without interfering in the normal competition on the distribution level. Since the commencement of the agreement price manipulation among saw-millers on the sawn structural timber market has ceased, and the agreement affords saw-millers the opportunity to consolidate their cash flow position. Recently the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs lifted price control on sawn structural timber and decided to order an investigation to determine whether the agreement to which I have referred—and in which, as I have said, I was instrumental— is not in conflict with the provisions of the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act, 1955. I welcome such an investigation. We are of the opinion that it is not in conflict with that legislation. As I have said, I had to do something, and in my opinion this was the best solution. I hope that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and his department will not find that the timber industry is guilty in this connection, and I hope we will be able to continue, by means of this measure, to promote real stability.

Sawn softwood is being exported to an increasing extent. Support for this export effort is requested. Considerable success is being achieved on the export market and export inquiries are even being received from traditional timber-growing countries such as Canada. I think the hon. member for Humansdorp also referred to this. Timber is being exported at a marginal profit level and sometimes at a loss because the saw-millers in the Republic are in a less favourable competitive position owing to the fact that the Republic is situated at a considerable distance from the overseas markets. Those markets are price intensive as a result of the fierce competition from closer suppliers of saw-timber. To promote the export of sawtimber and to help the exporters to compete on overseas markets, provision has been made in the estimates of the Department of Commerce for 1978-’79 also to apply the rebate on railage which applies in respect of certain other export commodities to sawtimber earmarked for export. This will take effect as from 1 April 1978. Since no funds were provided in the estimates of the Department of Commerce for 1977-’78 for the granting of a rebate, Treasury approval was obtained to enable the Department of Forestry to grant a rebate of 25% on the prices of sawtimber logs used in the production of sawtimber for the export market.

I am referring to these matters to indicate to hon. members that there were representations asking us to give assistance and try to stimulate the export effort. My department and I are constantly giving attention to this important aspect and assisting this industry in its export effort in order to ensure stability in the forestry industry.

It is of the utmost importance that timber of an inferior quality should not find its way on to the export market and in that way ruin the image of South African timber. On the other hand, however, it is a fact that differentiated markets for a wide variety of qualities have been found and that the quality of timber required by the importers frequently has no bearing on that of locally required timber and is not covered by SABS specifications. This is a new problem we are being confronted with. A further problem is that the introduction of compulsory grading of exported timber may lead to delays and push up the costs even further, while it is already necessary to reduce export prices to an uneconomic level in order to compete with timber-producing countries which are closer to the export markets. Nevertheless, it is deemed necessary to exercise some form of control over the export of timber, and Government Notice No. 2677 was consequently promulgated on 30 December 1977 to require timber exporters to register with the Department of Forestry. I am not going into any further details, but I do think we should keep an eye on the position so that we do not incur any unnecessary risks in this connection. The forestry industry has of course assumed tremendous proportions and it has already grown to a point where approximately R1 100 million has been invested in the industry, which provides a 100 000 employees with work. This is another very important aspect which we have to bear in mind.

In view of the industry’s future requirements in the way of limited resources, manpower and capital and its contribution to the creation of future infrastructures it is essential that a national forestry plan be drawn up for optimal integration into the overall planning of the country.

The fact that commercial timber plantations can take anything up to 30 to 40 years to become mature for felling makes forestry a long-term undertaking. For this reason we are endeavouring to achieve a permanent yield which can ensure a constant supply of roundtimber by means of normalizing arrangements. Because forestry forms an integral part of the national economy, it is very sensitive to economic fluctuations over the short term since it is difficult to adjust the constant supply of timber to the fluctuations in the demand for this product.

Prognosis studies—both hon. members and I have already referred to this—indicate that the surface area under established plantations, consisting of more than 1 million ha, will have to be almost doubled to meet the timber requirements of the country at the end of this century. The hon. member for Orange Grove indicated that according to his figures we shall perhaps have too much timber up to the year 2010. That hon. member should perhaps look at the statistics again so that he can gain a more balanced perspective of this matter. As far as the present plantations are concerned, I want to point out that to acquire double the present area of land for commercial afforestation, measured against the present sylvicultural requirements and bearing in mind the country’s food and water requirements, sounds a little ambitious because it is not available. In the long-term afforestation planning it will be necessary to make provision for the afforestation of marginal rainfall areas, and those who enter this field will of course have to have considerable capital resources and will have to make certain that industries can be established and that that timber can be used as raw material. As far as long-term planning is concerned, I think it is essential, in the first place, to identify areas where new forest plantations ought to be given priority over other methods of land utilization. Secondly, the country’s total potential for timber production ought to be determined and, thirdly, adequate incentive measures ought to be formulated in order to develop and utilize the country’s forestry potential to the full. In this connection I want to mention that an interdepartmental committee is already giving consideration to priority areas for forestry, and although an official of the department is working on this project on a full-time basis, there is still a great deal to be done in this regard. I do not think we can argue that such a national forestry plan is not very important.

I want to refer briefly to the fact that the Forestry Council meets the need for constant liaison between the department, the private timber growers and timber processing industries. This council has been functioning since 1973 and its contribution to the formulation of forestry policy is well known. Although the council has already identified several long-term problems, it has not been able to proceed to undertake rational long-term planning because it does not have a staff organization available for this task. All that has happened so far in this connection is that the council has identified the need for long-term planning and has already, owing to the high priority which this receives, constituted a Permanent Committee for Forestry Planning. However, the department will not be able to accept responsibility for the task of planning unless its existing organization is strengthened, and urgent attention is already being given to this aspect. I am mentioning this because I think it is very important that hon. members should know that these matters are not being approached in an unsystematic way.

Because a great deal of time can be saved in this way, the Forestry Council has in the meantime, pending developments in the department, acquired the services of Dr. P. C. de Villiers, former professor of the Faculty of Forestry at the University of Stellenbosch to make a start on the planning task. I therefore feel that we have not acted in a roundabout way, but have tried to obtain the services of the best person who was available to carry on in the meantime with this very important task.

A further very important component of my department’s functions is the question of research. Research in regard to improvement, the land which is available, the long-term effects of afforestation—in the past we simply established plantations—the question of catchment area management, timber processing, etc., is being carried out. In the past we did not do enough research. For the sake of stability in the industry over the long term more fundamental and applied research is necessary. To ensure that research in all aspects of the production and processing of timber, the planning and management of mountain catchment areas and the reclamation of drift sand is geared to the requirements of the department and to those of the private forest and timber industry, having regard to priorities, the department has seen fit to institute an in-depth investigation into the needs and to formulate, on the basis of this investigation, a master plan which can serve as a blueprint for forestry research. This decision coincided with the retirement of Dr.C. L. Wicht as professor of sylviculture at the University of Stellenbosch and the department saw fit to make use of his services for this complex and comprehensive task. However, I regret to have to inform hon. members that Dr. Wicht died on 7 May this year, but not before he had virtually completed this herculean task. I should like to pay tribute here to his memory, not only in regard to this important undertaking, but also in regard to the major part which he has played as researcher and lecturer in the promotion of sylviculture in South Africa. I do not want to elaborate any further on the late Dr. Wicht. Perhaps the hon. members read about his death in the Press and of the field in which he had done so well. It is gratifying that he was able to perform this particular task for the department before he died. Once again I express my appreciation for that to him in memoriam.

In this general survey of the forestry industry I have replied to most of the points raised by the hon. members. I now want to return briefly to the respective contributions.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the Government’s responsibility in respect of the forestry industry. He stated that we might have an over-supply of wood for 13 years. I have already referred to that aspect. I do not necessarily agree in this regard. The hon. member further indicated that he was against the agreement amongst sawmillers as he felt we should not be monopolistic. I do not agree with that and have already indicated that my colleague, the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs, has asked for an investigation and we can await the result of that investigation.

As far as railway rates are concerned, I have already indicated that we try to render assistance as far as possible. The hon. member further asked for positive action from the Minister and the department and said that the matter was very urgent. We have already done as much as we could in this regard.

*The hon. member for Humansdorp pointed out that the forestry industry was not solely the responsibility of the State. He also said that the free market mechanism was not the solution and asked private enterprise to do more in regard to the price question. He referred to the lowering of prices. I have already reacted to that. In addition he asked for strict standards for exports. In my survey I indicated that this was a very difficult situation. There is a demand for various types of timber and to adhere strictly to the standards is therefore going to cause problems.

He referred to the exports of wattle to Japan, and said that a second contract was very urgently required. I can tell him that we have done a great deal in this regard. We have had talks with the Railways in this regard. The problem is that there is no room at present in Durban harbour for storing chips. There is more room at Richards Bay, but the capacity of the new line is too limited to convey this product because priority is of course being given to coal and minerals. However, negotiations are in progress. The representative of the Japanese firm came to say goodbye to me this morning because he is being replaced by a new representative. He told me that although the economic activities of Japan had levelled off, they were proceeding with a second contract, on which they had already completed their study. I also hear that Mr. Craig-Anderson is leaving shortly for Japan in connection with this contract. I hope that we will be able to create the facilities to make this contract possible, a contract which can bring about great stability.

The hon. member for Caledon referred to the flora of the Southern Cape. This is a subject on which all of us can wax lyrical. It is definitely impressive. It is a matter to which my department is of course giving a great deal of attention. These days consideration is being given to the conservation of this beautiful heritage of ours on a more scientific basis. People are frequently critical of fires, but if one reads up on the subject, one will realize that scientists nowadays adopt the approach that burning is in fact necessary. The other day I visited an area where the scarce “vlei rose” occurs. At one stage it seemed that this plant, with its exceptionally beautiful bloom, was likely to become extinct. Then it was discovered, however, that the growth of this plant is stimulated by periodic fires. New plants usually spring up after a fire.

As far as invader plants are concerned, I shall try to furnish a few more particulars. This is a very important matter. Other hon. members also referred to this subject. We have a tremendous task in this connection.

The hon. member for Ermelo referred to over-production and to the problems arising from that practice. He asked for attention to be given to the establishment of a new paper factory. I want to tell him that I asked the department last year to request the existing investors in paper factories to give attention to the establishment or enlargement of a pulp factory in the Eastern Transvaal and another in Natal, and to make a proper study to determine what capital investment would be required. We have already received one of those reports. We hope that the other report will also be available soon, and then we shall have a detailed picture of the capital investment which will be required to expand the pulp factories to meet our domestic demands and also to absorb our production. The hon. member suggested that the private and public sectors should co-operate and I agree with him.

†The hon. member for Mooi River referred to transport costs. I agree with him that it is very important. As I have told him, we are trying to assist as far as rebates are concerned. It is not as easy a solution as he has indicated. Other Ministers have their problems too. However, I can give him the assurance that we are continually paying attention to this. We hope to find some solution.

*He also referred to the inconsistency in the report. I have already told him that it seems to me he was correct. I find no explanation for it. However, I shall let him know if we do find an explanation for it.

He also referred to the interest of the small grower. I want to agree with him in that connection. In addition he referred to co-operative marketing. I have no fault to find with his arguments. I think it is very important to give attention to this matter. However, these are matters which affect the growers themselves, and I do not think there ought to be too much State intervention. With reference to the legislation which I am going to introduce in a moment, criticism was expressed by certain people that there is too much State interference and that the State is not really rendering a service in this way.

I do not always agree with these people. In my opinion the industry should be allowed to organize itself. It is a question of co-operation, particularly as far as marketing is concerned, but also other services. The value of this to the small grower cannot be underestimated.

The hon. member for Somerset East referred to all the branches and activities of the department and particularly to the hiking trails. He asked whether a guide was being prepared. I can give him the assurance that the department is working on one. I think that it ought to be available soon, and I believe that it will be possible to meet that need with this publication. I do not doubt that it is very important.

The hon. member for Barberton referred to the manufacture of ethyl alcohol and that it was already being done in other countries. He also referred to the need for energy. This matter is at present receiving attention and the Department of Forestry has already requested the necessary organizations to undertake research in this direction. It seems that ethyl alcohol from wood cannot easily be integrated with the manufacture of ethyl alcohol from sugar, but I still think that with the necessary research it will be possible to solve the problems. It also appears from information which I have acquired that the capital investment for ethyl alcohol from wood is considerable. However, this does not detract from the fact, as the hon. member indicated, that we have here a very important source of energy which is in fact not being utilized, for when timber is harvested approximately 50% goes to waste. This could be utilized as a source of energy because it has to be disposed of in any case.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay referred to the name of the department. I discussed the matter with the Secretary for Forestry during the course of the year and said that it was perhaps necessary, owing to the multiplicity of activities of this department and its importance, that we give this matter our attention. People think that the Department of Forestry simply plants saplings, looks after saw-mills and provides the private sector with extension services, while its activities extend over a far wider area and its conservation function is considerable. I think we should give a little consideration to this matter. There are sentiments attached to the name, and perhaps the Department of Forestry would not like to change its name. However, I think the hon. member made a stimulating proposal which I think we would do well to consider. I do not want to offer a prize but I think we should begin to think in that direction.

The hon. member also referred to the hakea problem. This is of course one of the invader plants to which other hon. members also referred and which create tremendous problems for the department. He asked for enabling legislation. I can give him the assurance that the department will look into the matter.

†In conclusion I should briefly like to refer to this question of alien vegetation, the widespread occurrence thereof and the trouble we have with it. It causes great concern to the Department of Forestry as, indeed, to all nature-loving South Africans. An area of approximately 200 000 ha of State forest land is infested with these plants, of which hakea can been singled out as the most prominent. During the 1976-’77 financial year an area of approximately 44 000 ha was cleared of these plants at a cost of R434 000. This, however, does not imply that the area has been finally cleared because follow-up work will have to be carried out in the years ahead. The eradication of these invader plants is a protracted, time-consuming and costly operation. Although the Department of Forestry has been actively tackling the problem in recent years, the availability of funds still remain the limiting factor. Optimism, however, exists about the eventual successful eradication of this alien vegetation problem, but it is obvious that the problem will remain with us for many years to come and that funds will have to be made available to an increasing extent to guarantee success.

I am not going into further detail now, but I think it is very advisable that hon. members should take notice of this problem. We are spending a great deal of money and time on this problem and I have no doubt that we shall achieve the necessary success, because we have dedicated people who are working on it.

*Once again, with these few ideas, I want to thank those hon. members who made fine contributions towards making this debate a very interesting one.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members already know, the subject of the Forest Amendment Bill was referred to a Select Committee for investigation and report after the Second Reading, at my suggestion.

Certain shortcomings recently came to light in the Forest Act, 1968, Act No. 72 of 1968, and apart from the amendment of two definitions which was desirable due to practical considerations, and with a view to greater clarity and completeness, there is a need for the amendment and amplification of the Act, to the extent set out in the Bill under discussion. Hon. members will note that the Select Committee proposed a few additional amendments that are acceptable to me in all respects.

Wilderness areas, nature reserves and protection forests that were set aside in terms of sections 7 and 7A of the Forest Act, 1968, enjoy a special status as regards conservation, but unfortunately there are certain anomalies in the provisions of the Act relating to such areas. Despite the fact that the granting of rights to public bodies in such areas is subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament, section 9(1)(b) nevertheless authorizes the granting of a wide variety of temporary rights to other bodies, and the Minister of Forestry can even go so far as to withdraw such areas from setting aside in terms of the provisions of section 7(1 )(b) and 7A(3), or to change the borders thereof. The amendment of sections 7, 7A and 9, as proposed in clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill, will be necessary to eliminate these anomalies and to ensure that no such conservation area is defaced, withdrawn or alienated without the approval of both Houses of Parliament.

National and provincial parks and nature reserves comprise only about 3% of the surface area of South Africa, and the conservation areas under the control of the Department of Forestry therefore make an extremely valuable contribution towards the supplementing of this limited area. If there should be pressure to allow roads, railways and power lines across such areas, it is only right that Parliament, as the highest authority in the country, should take the decision on priorities.

Over the years, the determination of the price of roundwood and a fair basis for price negotiations have been and still are problem areas in the private sector of the forestry industry. A satisfactory solution to these problems is considered a prerequisite for stability in the forestry industry, and this is essential for the production of a long-term harvest like timber. Price negotiations between timber growers and timber manufacturers are for the most part a complicated, lengthy process, and often end without an agreement having been reached. In order to bring about the necessary stability in the industry, it is deemed necessary to make statutory provision for enabling the Minister of Forestry to determine a price for round-wood under certain circumstances.

†I wish particularly to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that clause 5 of the Bill provides that the Minister may determine the price at which roundwood is sold, not that he shall do so. It is not my intention, if this clause is accepted, to dictate roundwoord prices to the industry if it is at all possible for the growers and purchasers of timber to reach agreement without my intervention. Instead I shall, as proposed by the Select Committee, prescribe the procedure to be followed in negotiating the prices of such categories of roundwood as may be causing dissatisfaction by notice in the Government Gazette and I shall thereafter only intervene if the negotiations which are carried out in the prescribed manner should break down. As stated in the Bill, I shall avail myself of the advice of the statutory Forestry Council in framing a basis for the determination of prices.

I believe in an absolute minimum of Government interference in the affairs of private enterprise, and I am optimistic enough to anticipate that when negotiations are conducted on the lines to be laid down by regulation, I shall seldom, and I hope never, be called upon to arbitrate.

Forest officers of the Department of Forestry are not infrequently required to enter upon private land in the execution of certain duties such as the inspection of trees and forests with a view to their declaration as protected trees or forests, the inspection of protected trees to ensure their continuing conservation, the inspection of areas afforested under permit to ascertain whether the conditions of the permit are being honoured and the placing of beacons for the purposes of boundary description. To facilitate the task of such forest officers it is deemed necessary to supplement existing legislation to give them the required right of entry subject to the conditions set out in clause 6 of the Bill.

Under the powers vested in him by section 10 of the Forest Act, 1968, the Minister of Forestry has determined, by notice in the Government Gazette, that no structural timber produced from coniferous trees grown in the Republic shall be sold by a sawmiller or removed from the premises of a sawmill unless it has first been marked with the appropriate prescribed grading mark of the South African Bureau of Standards. Difficulty has been experienced in successfully prosecuting offenders against this notice as it cannot always be proved that the trees from which the timber in question was sawn were in fact grown in the Republic. The possibility of amending the notice to place the onus of proving that such trees were grown outside the Republic on the accused was explored, but the State law advisers are of the opinion that such a provision must be incorporated in the Act itself. If this is not done, future prosecutions for transgressions of the grading regulations will have little chance of success, and clause 8 of the Bill has therefore been introduced to rectify the position.

The Department of Forestry is by far the largest single producer of softwood sawlogs in the country, and sells such logs to sawmillers under long-term contracts with the object of providing the security of tenure required to justify heavy capital investment in efficient sawmills. These contracts embody a price escalation clause providing for the periodic revision of prices by mutual agreement, but also a clause by which contracts are automatically terminated if agreement cannot be reached within a prescribed period and after prescribed procedures have been followed. As a result of representations by the South African Lumber Millers’ Association for amendment of the contracts to guard against the possibility of early termination, the Department of Forestry agreed that provision could be made in the contracts to submit any deadlock on sawlog prices to arbitration. Since the Forest Act, 1968, makes no allowance for such arbitration, appropriate provision is proposed in clause 9 of the Bill.

*As the national hiking trail system develops, we are faced with situations in practice that were impossible to foresee earlier on. The latest indications are that other bodies, for instance local authorities, may be prepared to construct and control hiking trails with the necessary facilities out of their own funds. The linking up of such hiking trails with the national hiking trail system could make an important contribution to the countrywide expansion of the system and it is considered desirable that the necessary statutory provision to make this possible as set out in clauses 10 and 11, be made at this point.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has described the Bill as an omnibus Bill since it contains a number of provisions; 11 clauses in fact. There is no doubt in my mind that most of these clauses have to do with relatively unimportant matters while the substance of the Bill is contained in clause 5.

Apart from clause 5 there is, inter alia, a clause which provides that land set aside for nature reserves, for protection forests or for wilderness areas may be withdrawn from such setting aside only with the approval of the Senate and the House of Assembly. We certainly shall not quarrel with such provisions. There are also provisions which deal with the question of overnight stay on forest land. We have no quarrel with that either.

In clause 8 a presumption is created that timber shall be presumed to be timber produced from trees grown in the Republic until the contrary is proved. Although in principle we are not very keen on presumptions, this presumption can be easily rebutted and therefore we have no objection to that clause. In short, 10 of the 11 clauses, as far as we are concerned, would meet with the support of hon. members in these benches.

It is, in fact, in clause 5 which allows the Minister to determine prices for timber in the round produced in South Africa that we find the main principle of the Bill. I should like to say at the outset that I think it is regrettable that after a Bill has been referred to a Select Committee which has listened to a considerable amount of very important evidence, the evidence is not available to hon. members. This evidence is being printed, but it still has not been presented to hon. members for consideration. I believe that when one goes to the trouble of referring a Bill to a Select Committee and the Select Committee, after having listened to an enormous amount of evidence, comes to its conclusions, hon. members should be given the opportunity of reading that evidence so that they themselves can come to conclusions. It is my belief that the conclusions the Select Committee came to in respect of this clause were, in the main, totally different from the bulk of the evidence heard by the Select Committee. The bulk of the evidence was to the effect that it was undesirable to give the hon. the Minister the power to control prices for timber in the round.

Did you say part of the evidence?

I said the bulk of the evidence; most of it was to that effect.

I was interested in the introductory speech of the hon. the Minister because there is no doubt at all that it is his intention that he would only exercise these powers in extreme circumstances. He feels that it ought to be possible for the industry to come to some sort of accommodation without any necessity for his intervention. He feels that it must be in the background so that if they cannot sort out their troubles, he ought to be put in a situation to do that. He says, as is stated in the Bill, that he will avail himself of the advice of the statutory Forestry Council in finding a basis for the determination of prices. We are grateful for this. The Select Committee recommended that the clause be amended, and the amended clause which the Select Committee put forward does in fact improve the clause to a certain extent. Nevertheless, even though he will consult with the Forestry Council, we do not believe that the hon. the Minister should have the right to interfere with prices. This is interference with a free market system. I should like to quote the Commission of Inquiry into the Marketing Act—we were reminded of this by somebody who gave evidence, and I think it is important in relation to this provision in the Bill. The Commission of Inquiry into the Marketing Act laid down an important guideline when it said: “Control should never be extended for its own sake. It should be extended only when the advantages of control outweigh the dangers of creating inefficiency and damaging initiative.” Admittedly, the timber industry is in a very serious situation at the moment. I think the hon. the Minister probably does believe, as did many members of the Select Committee, that it is absolutely imperative that the Minister should have the right to control. If he actually does believe that, I think it is a little naïve of the hon. the Minister to suggest that it is only in extreme circumstances that he will be called upon to use this.

I do not know whether he envisages this as a sword of Damocles hanging over the head of the industry, whether he is saying to them that if they are not going to be good boys he will step in, put things right and sort them out, but it is my belief that by bringing about a situation where the hon. the Minister has the right to control, inevitably the normal business relationship between a buyer and a seller is going to break down completely and inevitably we are going to be in a situation where the hon. the Minister is going to have to use his powers because the industry will be unable to resolve its difficulties on its own.

The Select Committee was faced with a very difficult problem to solve. On the one hand there were claims by certain people who gave evidence that in a situation of oversupply the big buyers were using that situation as a lever to force prices down which resulted in a very difficult situation in some quarters. The small grower said: It is all very well to talk about a free market system and a free enterprise system, but there is no free enterprise as far as we are concerned because we are in the hands of a few big buyers who actually screw us into the ground when it comes to determining prices; we are not in a situation where we can fight these big chaps, but we have to accept the prices they give us and be satisfied with that. Obviously, this is a very serious allegation. If this is so, if big monopolies are making use of a situation of oversupply to treat smaller growers unfairly, there might well be a case for giving protection to the smaller growers. On the other hand, we had evidence on the other side suggesting a different situation. That evidence stressed the dangers of this sort of price control. The bulk of the evidence suggested that it was absolutely inevitable that, if provision was made for price control on the Statute Book, it would end up with the creation of a control board and control of quotas. The bulk of the evidence was to this effect. I think there were only one or two people who said they did not think a control board would result from giving the Minister this power. The bulk of the evidence, however, was to the effect that a control board would result, and I must admit that I go along with the bulk of the evidence since I believe that it is absolutely inevitable that the hon. the Minister will have to use his powers and, if he is to use them effectively, he will need some kind of control mechanism which in effect will be a control board.

The timber industry is a highly complicated industry. Its marketing is highly complicated. We are talking about price determination for timber in the round when that timber in the round is used in a huge diversity of markets and for different reasons. So, there is mine-timber, pulp and all sorts of products. If the hon. the Minister is to determine a price, he must do so on a completely informal basis. He must know what he is talking about. He must know how much it costs, what the final markets are and what price the final products can fetch. Although evidence was given by the S.A. Timber Growers Association to the effect that it would be a very easy thing to police this operation and that controlled prices could easily be established by the hon. the Minister, other evidence, including the evidence of the Secretary for the department, was in fact that it would need considerable policing if the hon. the Minister had to use these powers and that a considerable number of people would be needed to do the controlling and policing. This would obviously lead to a considerably greater expenditure. We know of the difficulties which are always experienced when a control board takes over. We know that this inevitably means a higher price to the consumer. It is particularly about the higher price for the user that I must express the gravest reservations from these benches. Firstly we had evidence to the effect that if a price was fixed which was unreasonably high, there would be considerable danger to the export market. What determines the health of an industry and its ability to sell a product is what one gets when one sells to the final user. One has to determine a price from there. If the hon. the Minister fixes a price which may be perfectly fair in terms of production costs, such a price may include every aspect of production costs and may be perfectly fair in that respect but it might put the price out of reach of the final user.

In other words, there is a supply and demand situation which exists not only on the local market but also on the international market. Evidence was led to the effect that export markets would be severely prejudiced at the moment in view of the recessionary situation and the fact that there is a surplus of timber and timber products on the international market, and that to compete, one possibly had to take advantage of prices on a realistic basis as they exist at the moment.

[Inaudible.]

I cannot hear what the hon. Chief Whip is mumbling. If he wants to ask a question he is at liberty to stand on his feet and do so. I will be perfectly happy to answer his question if he would like to do so.

Ask Bill Sutton what he said.

We did get evidence to the effect that tampering with prices would cause danger to the export market. I think we are all in agreement that long-term export is vital, because the oversupply will continue for some time. There may be some argument as to how long the oversupply situation will last, but it is clear that we will have to develop our export markets, and if we do anything which may jeopardize those export markets, we are doing something which is not in the interests of the timber industry as a whole.

We had further evidence to the effect that price control would be a danger to further investment in big enterprises such as additional pulp mills. We had evidence to the effect that there was an international market for pulp. Investing in a pulp mill is a major operation. I do not think a pulp mill can be erected today for less than R300 million at the very least. If one is going to discourage this sort of investment in South African industry because of price control, we should think again. I do not think that the evidence was idly given. I believe that investors in a free enterprise system generally do not like the market tampered with by governmental controls. They believe they should be in a situation to take advantage of a normal buyer-seller relationship and they would hesitate to invest in something where arbitrary control by the Government could, in fact, influence the profitability of that investment.

Another threat to the timber industry which was stressed in evidence which came before the Select Committee was to the effect that there was a danger of competition from substitutes to timber if prices were controlled at too high a level. As far as the mining industry is concerned there certainly are substitutes which are being used more and more. We have evidence to the effect that elements like concrete blocks and steel props are becoming a very real competitive threat to timber because of the higher price of timber. Therefore, in stressing that it depends on what price the hon. the Minister decides on, whether it is going to be a low price or a high price, I think I am making it clear to hon. members just how complicated the whole machinery of price fixing must be. While considering the whole question of price control, I think we also have to accept that it is absolutely inevitable that if one has price control, one is also going to have quota control. The hon. the Minister already has provisions on the Statute Book which allows him to exercise quota control. If he is going to control prices, I think it is absolutely certain that he is also going to end up by exercising his powers to control quotas.

What about quality control?

Quality is another aspect which comes into the whole question of price determination. There are obviously various qualities of timber, and how is the hon. the Minister going to …

Are you in favour of quality control?

Obviously one wants to be in a situation where one can improve the quality of something and, obviously, if one has to deal with different qualities of timber, one will have to fix different prices for those different qualities. I do not envy the hon. the Minister if he is going to start determining prices on an arbitrary basis without having a look at timber and saying that he wants to buy the timber and because it is of a certain quality, it is worth a certain amount.

The hon. the Minister is going to be placed in a situation where he will not be able to talk about quality as he is unable to assess it. He will therefore have to talk in generality.

On this whole question of quota control, I would like to quote some pretty straightforward and tough evidence which came before the committee. In all realism I think we must regard it as evidence which cannot be discounted. It was evidence given by Mr. Scholz of the S.A. Sawmillers’ Association, an association which were of course totally opposed to any sort of price control by the hon. the Minister. Mr. Scholz was talking about quota control, which he regarded as inevitable too. He said—

That is straight talk, if ever you had it. He said that they would find a way around it, that you would not be able to police it or that you would not be able to use the powers effectively. He says further—

What he is therefore saying in the first place is that a provision of this nature is unenforceable, and an unenforceable provision is bad law. He goes further and says that another question is the cash flow position.

People have their own timber, and one of the problems in the timber industry is that there are a tremendous number of large organizations which are not only timber growers, but timber users and processors as well. In many instances they therefore use their own timber for their processing plants, their sawmills, etc. The accusation has been levelled at them that they use their own timber in preference to timber from other small growers and that the small growers are being left out in the cold. This might or might not be happening. I am going to come back to this, because the evidence was that it was not in fact happening. I once again want to quote the evidence by Mr. Scholz. He says—

This is very logical, very simple and absolutely inescapable if one is arguing the situation. One cannot force a grower not to use his own timber, but to use somebody else’s timber. What is the hon. the Minister going to do when the grower comes to him and says: “It is all very well for you to control quotas in this way, but I have not got the money to buy So-and-so’s timber; you cannot make me do it”? The hon. the Minister may have many bureaucrats on this control board operation—which I think is inevitable—who will try to exercise their minds to try to find a way around it, but again one is led to the inescapable conclusion that if ever the hon. the Minister has to control prices, he is going to need a huge bureaucracy to do so. He is going to need a control board …

Disastrous!

… which, as my hon. colleague says, would be disastrous.

The accusation was made by the S.A. Timber Growers’ Association, who represented a lot of small growers, that the big growers were taking advantage of the situation of oversupply. They alleged that the bigger growers were forcing the smaller growers to cut prices and that the smaller growers were unfairly being left in the cold by the bigger growers who were using their own timber. The evidence which we had did not bear this out at all. In fact, it became evident from some of the evidence that the large users were in fact exercising a voluntary quota control. If, for example, timber needs were 80%, rather than the full 100%, they were out of their own volition using 80% of their own timber and 80% of their normal private timber supplies. In other words, they were exercising a voluntary quota control. It was therefore evident that the smaller growers were not being exploited. Mr. Malherbe, the chairman of the committee looking into the marketing of round woods, gave evidence before the committee. In question 189 I asked him—

His response was—

In question 190 I again asked—

Mr. Malherbe’s answer was—

It was again and again borne out in evidence that the price of timber has escalated on a better basis than the prices of most other raw materials coming from, for instance, the agricultural industry, i.e. the farmer. The timber grower has in fact done better. The S.A. Timber Growers’ Association were the only people who pleaded for ministerial price control. We had evidence that the starting price in 1959 was so unfair that even though they have caught up a little since that time, prices were unrealistic. I found that very difficult to believe, in that I do not believe people plant trees unless they see the possibility of profit from the planting of those trees. We had evidence from one of the major growers, Acme Timbers, to the effect that they felt it was very necessary that the free marketing system should remain. Mr. Brand, who represented Acme Timbers, said—

This is not entirely true, incidentally, because the department and the hon. the Minister have on many occasions asked people to grow trees—

Here we come to one of the really important aspects of what we are considering today, namely the aspect of the free market system. Nobody forces anybody to grow trees. People do so of their own volition because they feel they are going to make a profit out of it. When we run into hard times it becomes evident that it is very difficult to make any sort of profit and very easy to make a loss. What is a gamble—and we all gamble in a free enterprise system—is turning sour. It is not only turning sour for the grower, it is also turning sour for the processor and the end user. If one looks at the position of the end user and the situation in the building industry and pulp industry, etc., one sees that things are not 100% as far as they are concerned either. They are having a very hard time.

It is quite apparent that the malady at the moment is oversupply in a market situation in which there is too much timber and too few buyers. It is not only the grower who is suffering—I want to make this very clear— but also the processor and the end user. I find it very difficult to understand why one should not also protect the processor and the end user once one starts interfering and protecting the grower. How can one justify the protection of one and not of the other?

We believe there cannot be successful price control by the hon. the Minister, and that he cannot control prices in a multifaceted industry such as the timber industry. If this clause is passed, there inevitably will be price control, because people must come to the hon. the Minister, and it will entail quota control. All in all this will not be to the advantage of the timber industry as a whole. We are going to vote against this Bill because we believe that clause 5, which is the most important clause in the Bill, contains a principle which is unacceptable to us.

Politics in the woods!

The hon. Chief Whip now talks about politics in forestry. It is hardly that. It concerns a basic difference in philosophies between people who believe in State control, socialism, and those who believe in a free enterprise system.

I should like to move the following amendment—

This, as I think hon. members will understand, is a highly complicated subject. My colleague, the hon. member for Wynberg, who sat on the Select Committee, is going to do what he can to try to throw a little more light on the complexities of the situation. The limited time factor prevents me from discussing many important aspects. However, I should like hon. members to accept my contention that this clause is not going to help the small grower; in fact, it might make his life more difficult. It is going to inhibit investment in the timber industry and it is going to inhibit the ability of the processor to sell his product on an international market. In other words, I believe we are going to do damage to exports and to investments and we are not going to help the small grower. We are not going to introduce stability, and I would therefore suggest to the hon. the Minister that many of the steps which he has suggested in the preceding debate to try to build up a demand for timber, are going to be the real answer to the uncertainty that exists in the industry at the moment. I think he should pursue this rather than give himself the power to control prices which will result in a control board, and nothing could be less desirable than a control board in the present circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove set up a whole lot of scarecrows and was then greatly frightened by them himself. He is afraid that things may happen which I do not think will happen at all. In the amendments that the Select Committee accepted, we built in security measures in order to avoid those very things. I do not foresee that the control mechanism which is being created will be at all difficult to handle or to apply. Years ago, when the wattle industry was faced with major problems, the same problems arose there as exist in the timber industry at the moment. There was a great deal of overproduction and there were producers that were also processors. All the problems were there. But this was solved very well by the Wattle Act. It is true that wattle is in a different position because it is a product which is exported and it was fairly easy to solve the problem.

In the amendment to the clause, however, we are providing that the Minister will determine prices only where it is really necessary for that category of timber which finds itself in a problematical situation. That is why I think the hon. member for Orange Grove is unnecessarily concerned about many of these matters. We are also building into the clause that the basis of the price determining mechanism will be referred to the Forestry Council, and the Forestry Council will be in a position to consult all responsible people concerned on what procedure should be adopted, when they will go to the Minister for arbitration, etc., and in this way the industry will be in the position of being able to determine for itself how these things should be done. I think it will mean that the forestry industry will have to work out a proper scheme of how they want to establish orderly marketing. In this respect I think it will have a very good effect on the industry, because it will compel the industry to take a look at their marketing organization.

I should like to refer briefly to the other clauses in the Bill. The hon. the Minister also referred to them and said that deficiencies occurred from time to time and that greater clarity had to be found on certain matters.

In clause 3 we find that Parliament’s right concerning wilderness areas and nature reserves is being protected by eliminating certain anomalies. I think it is necessary for wilderness areas to be protected as much as possible and that other public bodies should not simply be able to intervene of their own accord if they want to do certain things.

Clause 4 amends section 9 of the principal Act because the Department of Forestry is the largest producer of sawlogs. Long-term contracts have often ended in deadlocks. This means that the sawmills eventually had to close down because no price agreements could be reached. Section 10 of the principal Act is being amended in order to provide for the expansion of hiking trails. The hon. member for Somerset East discussed the system of hiking trails during the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote. This is something of which we are very proud. We should ultimately like it to be a interlinked system, criss-crossing the entire country. This amendment of the Act now makes it possible for other public bodies to establish portions of hiking trails, and manage them in co-operation with the Department of Forestry. I think this is a very good amendment.

Furthermore I want to refer to clause 5 of the Bill. This is the clause that deals with price determinations. It is true that the industry finds itself in a problematical situation. In the Select Committee we heard evidence by the S.A. Timber Growers’ Association from which it became apparent that there are 2 600 timber lot producers that are experiencing problems. After all, one cannot close one’s eyes to such a large number of timber growers. In fact, we heard today in the discussion of the Vote that the small timber grower is very important to the industry. I think we are doing the right thing by looking after their interests as well.

Experience has taught us that most timber growers negotiate long-term contracts with the sawmills. However, the price negotiations with the sawmills are often very complicated and long drawn out. It is often found— according to the evidence that we heard—that an agreement cannot be reached. The Select Committee studied the written and oral evidence very thoroughly.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that he is not really being quite fair to the Secretariate. We did in fact have an opportunity to peruse the unrevised version of the evidence. Amendments may possibly be made later, but I do not think the hon. member has reason to complain. We have the evidence and he could have studied it. We also told those who gave evidence that they should rather have organized themselves. They told us, however, that they had been trying for 20 years to organize themselves into co-operatives and other bodies, but they had not yet been able to achieve success.

This shortcoming which is caused by poor organization, has now been aggravated as a result of the surplus situation. The Forestry Council was established a few years ago and it brought the various parties together. It was hoped that a proper agreement could be achieved, through the Forestry Council, and that orderly marketing would take place in that prices would be negotiated by means of agreement. However, this did not happen. The Malherbe Committee was appointed last year at the request of the Forestry Council in order to investigate the entire problem of timber marketing. The committee discovered that the main problems were that there was too little competition among an insufficient number of buyers. The committee also discovered that there was inadequate provision in the contract between growers and sawmills for determining and reviewing prices.

Thirdly, the committee discovered that there was a lack of concerted action among the producers when they negotiate. Fourthly, the committee discovered that the processors of timber are unable to pay higher prices for the primary product. This is because their profit margin is low and because they have to compete in a buyers’ market, whilst, as the hon. member for Orange Grove correctly said, there is also the danger that the manufacture of synthetic products will be encouraged. The Malherbe Committee recommended that the question of the quota, control and price determination should be reconsidered. The legal advisors went into the matter and discovered that provision was already made for quota control in the Forest Act. By the way, the hon. member for Orange Grove said that quota control was very dangerous. I do not think it is. Evidence was given before us that the producers and the processors applied quotas voluntarily. It was not necessary to appoint a police force to enforce it. Everyone co-operated, and I think the same would happen if the hon. the Minister had to determine quotas. It will therefore be a question of voluntary co-operation, because after all it is in the interests of everyone that people should keep to such quotas. I therefore do not think that it will be a very big problem to enforce them.

The Malherbe Committee reported to the Forestry Council and I must say it is disappointing that the Forestry Council rejected that report by only nine votes to six. Nevertheless the Minister circulated the legislation for commentary. I feel it was a good step, because a great deal of comment on it was received. The legislation was carefully studied by all the various bodies. They therefore had the opportunity to look at it. They complained a little that they were not given enough time to go into the matter, but when I asked them whether they would have come forward with other evidence if they had had more time, they declared that they were satisfied. In other words, a proper study was made of the legislation.

I want to say that the work of the Select Committee was tremendously interesting. We gathered information over a wide field covering the entire timber industry. We placed no limit on the evidence that the various witnesses gave. To sum up, we discovered that over-production does in fact exist, that there is a need for orderly marketing, and that other efforts, especially in the export sphere, are essential in order to solve the problem. The problems as regards export are lower timber prices abroad, high rail tariffs and the lack of an adequate stabilization fund from which exports can be subsidized.

Sir, there were considerable objections to the proposed legislation. It was said that there must be no unnecessary interference in the free market mechanism, because investors would be discouraged to invest money, that control would be difficult to apply, that existing contracts would be affected, and furthermore that the processors’ costs would be increased and their competitive position would therefore deteriorate. The Select Committee considered all these objections very thoroughly, and the amendments moved by the committee, were an attempt to meet these objections half-way. The amendments actually encompass three principles. The first is that a fixed basis must be established according to which price negotiations can take place. This amendment is based on the recommendations of the Malherbe Committee, which made a thorough study of a possible basis. However, this is not the last word that will be said about this.

The Forestry Council is now free to thrash this matter out properly and to establish a procedure for making price determinations. Secondly, the amendments aim at determining what basis is to be established, after consultation with the Forestry Council. In that way they will be able to become fully involved in the determination of the basis. The third principle covered in the amendments, is that the price will be determined only for those specific categories where problems do in fact exist. I therefore foresee that these amendments will have the effect of enabling the industry to organize itself much better. In most cases an agreement will be reached without it being necessary to make a representation to the Minister with a view to arbitration. I feel that instead of discouraging investors to enter the industry, it will contribute to stability, because after all every investor would like to know what he has to pay for his product. If the price is high one moment and low the next, he has no certainty as to what he will have to pay for his product. I foresee that proper standard contracts will be drawn up that will make provision for price escalation according to agreement which has been reached. I do not foresee that there will be unnecessary intervention with the free market mechanism since the industry itself would determine the basis on which prices must be calculated. Furthermore I think it will have the effect of forcing the Department of Forestry to advise the Minister from time to time on how the price determinations should be made. If the department has to do that, it will have to make a very thorough study of the supply and demand, as well as of the production costs so that it can advise the Minister on a permanent basis when he has to determine prices. I believe this amendment will solve many of the problems of the timber industry.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to start by conveying to the hon. member for Humansdorp the thanks of hon. members who took part in the Select Committee. We want to thank him for the way in which he conducted the Select Committee. Members were given every chance to go into matters and to put questions to the Secretary of the department and all other people who gave evidence. The people who came there to give evidence were also given every chance to make any case they might want to make. I think this is the way in which Select Committees work and I think this Select Committee functioned in the way that was expected of it. I think the hon. member did a good job of being chairman of the Select Committee.

The only thing of any contention at all in the Bill, is the question of clause 5 which provides for the fixing of prices. What we really have to decide on is whether the Minister should be given the right to fix prices. I think the term “to fix prices” may be a bit misleading, but let us use it for argument’s sake. The objection is made that giving the Minister the power to fix prices is contrary to the free enterprise system as we understand it. I believe that in the free enterprise system the principle of a willing buyer and a willing seller prevails and in this case, of course, it implies a free and adequate competition between the growers who have a product to market and the processors who want to buy the product. Hon. members will agree—I think the hon. member for Orange Grove will surely agree—that in this situation we find a multitude of growers of all sizes, big and small, and a very, very restricted number of processors who are the buyers of the product. In fact, a word which I had never heard before was used in the Select Committee, namely “monopsonistic” as opposed to “monopolistic”.

That is a very good word.

The hon. member should not tell me that he understands it. As I understand the use of the word, it applies to organizations which not only have a monopoly of what they buy, but also provide part of the product themselves so that they are doubly interested. I think that word sums up very clearly the activities of the organizations which are processors in this particular industry.

One of the things which have happened over the last few years, is that the growing tendency to co-operative marketing has led to a sharpening in attitude because the growing side, especially the small growers, have found a body which speaks for them, a body which can speak with authority and which is recognized by the Minister. This body is included in the setup of the Forestry Council which is the mouthpiece of the forest industry.

I think that the activities of the co-operative organization have led to a sharpening in attitude, which is all to the good. When we talk about the free enterprise system, we should remember that to be able to bargain, to have power to bargain, is one of the essential elements of the free enterprise system.

The growers’ association—I refer especially to the Central Timber Co-op—has assisted the growing side, and the smaller grower by name, to put pressure upon the processors. One of the ways in which they did it, was mentioned by the hon. member for Orange Grove. They contracted to supply timber to Japan. This was undertaken by the growing side of the industry—the private growers and the small growers—and the hon. the Minister at that time was under considerable pressure from those very people who are processors not to allow this to happen because they said that such action would destroy the supply of timber that they expected to draw from the plantations here in South Africa. There was a very great deal of pressure put up on the hon. the Minister, but the hon. the Minister, well advised by the department and by the private growers, allowed the co-operation to go ahead. That had an immediate effect, not only on the price—there was an immediate jump in price—but also on those very same processors who were brought around to another point of view. It has resulted in the argument being raised in this particular case that the ability the hon. the Minister has to fix prices is going to prejudice the export market to which they themselves were very seriously opposed when it was first entered into on the part of the private growers. I think they cannot have it both ways but that they must accept that the private grower has a very distinct interest in this particular industry. The question of price fixing was brought to the fore by the smaller growers acting through the co-operative organization which was determined to extract a better share of the market for the smaller growers. It is as simple as that. Where one has large organizations and such monopsonistic conditions the small grower and the private individual is in an absolutely hopeless and helpless position. I do not regard it as being the ideal situation in a free enterprise economy that certain people are in a position to—I shall not use the word the hon. member for Orange Grove used— push you into the ground by virtue of the size of their operation as compared with the size of the ordinary small grower’s operation.

Satga is the recognized mouthpiece of the smaller growers. I want to ask the hon. the Minister and members of the Select Committee who may speak after me whether the time has not come to have one organization to act as a mouthpiece for all the growers in South Africa.

There would be a clash of interests in any event. I myself have been struggling to bring such an organization about.

All I can say—and I think the members of the Select Committee will agree with me—is that on the growing side there are conditions that are totally unsound. There are the processors who are large growers and who have a special interest they represent and then there are a lot of small growers who have a special interest represented by Satga. I know the hon. the Minister agrees with me because he has just said that he has been trying to establish one organization in the country to represent all growers. I do not think it is beyond the bounds of possibility for the hon. the Minister, his department, a Select Committee, us or somebody to work out a system that would give representation in such a way as to satisfy the small growers in terms of numbers and the large growers in terms of acreage. It must be perfectly possible to work out a system. The hon. member for Humansdorp mentioned the wattle industry. Precisely the same situation pertained in that industry: There was one very large grower and a lot of smaller growers.

It is mentioned in the evidence almost with derogation that some of the growers have only 100 acres of timber or less. It does not necessarily follow that such a man is an inefficient grower. He may be a very efficient grower even though he is growing on a small scale. He may have a very short haul to the railway line. He may be able to plant timber on areas of his farm which cannot be used economically in any other way. I think we must accept that the small grower has a very vital role in this market.

I said earlier, in the debate on the Vote, that we must protect good agricultural ground. One of the ways in which we can do this, is to give the small grower and small farmer the ability to enter the market. Let us accept the fact that not one of the people who appeared before the Select Committee is in a position to supply all his own needs. The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the witness who said: The Minister cannot force me to buy timber from somebody else—it is a question of my cash flow and the operation of my business. However, he cannot survive in that business without buying timber from somebody else. The State and particularly the sawmills are the major suppliers. For a person to come before the Select Committee and say that the Minister cannot force him to do it and that he will find a means of evading this, is irresponsible. The size of the market in this country is surely small enough and the farmers are a body knowledgeable enough to be able to identify what is going on. I do not accept for one minute that it will happen, because it is entirely a voluntary arrangement at the moment, but if the hon. the Minister should be required to impose quotas on the industry, it will be quite easy to police it because of the size of the market. In addition, the consequences which would follow if anyone should deliberately breach the requirements of that quota are of such a nature that nobody would do that. I have no objection to large organizations and processors appearing before the Select Committee, fighting for their side, saying what they want and bringing all the evidence before the Select Committee that they can. If this is one of the factors that they wish to bring in, it is fair enough, but I do not think it is incumbent upon this House to take it into account if there are other factors that can be put against it. What we are asking here is that the hon. the Minister should be given the opportunity to settle what is, in fact, an impasse in the timber industry itself. This is what is happening and this is what the clause provides.

This is what the Select Committee requires of the House to agree to. If this is passed, it will then become incumbent upon the hon. the Minister to act in that fashion, and the Forest Council, on which growers and processors are represented, will enter into negotiations in regard to price. As the hon. member for Orange Grove quite rightly said, there are many different aspects such as sawmilling, timber, pulp wood, the wattle market, hard gum and all sorts of different categories of timber in respect of which prices will have to be negotiated. I am absolutely certain that the hon. the Minister will not have to determine the price in respect of every single branch I mentioned. They have operated well for a very long time. Satga said in evidence that they had been battling for 20 years since the time of their inception to get for the smaller grower what they regarded as a fair share and a fair price. They admitted to having failed totally in achieving this aim. The hon. member for Orange Grove quoted Mr. Malherbe. I think Satga may have been overstressing their case a little in that instance because evidence was laid before the committee that prices had gone up and that they had kept pace with the general inflation in the country. Mr. Malherbe, as the hon. member for Orange Grove said, felt that growers were still in quite a sound position in that regard. The point that I want to come back to is that the hon. the Minister will not, on his own accord, impose prices on the industry. He will be the court of last resort when the growers and the processors and the people who are grower-processors have sat down, negotiated and argued and have come to a deadlock. The hon. the Minister will then be called in and he will not come out of the blue to wave his wand. He will obtain all the figures that are at the Department of Forestry’s disposal, figures which are the most accurate in South Africa. He will also have at his disposal all the figures prepared for the negotiations by both sides represented on the Forest Council. He will therefore not merely take an arbitrary decision. I said yesterday that a compromise is something which I have always regarded as unsatisfactory to both sides. I am quite certain that when these people come to the hon. the Minister, having failed to resolve the dispute, the hon. the Minister will make a compromise and both sides will go away grumbling.

However, they will only come to the hon. the Minister once because the next time they will say: “We are not going back to that guy again. We are going to fix it ourselves.” I am quite sure this is what is going to happen and I think that is the situation in which the hon. the Minister will find himself. [Interjections.] I think that is the ideal situation in which the hon. the Minister can find himself because he is then not in the position of a perpetual arbitrator. I mention again the wattle industry, which has regulated its own affairs in an absolutely outstanding fashion. That is a supreme example of private enterprise in a farming community—in this case a very big organization, representing the processors— getting down to it and working out a solution which has worked from that day to this. The hon. the Minister announced today the increase of 101% in the wattle quota. This is something that must surely gladden the hearts of every single person in the wattle industry. The industry has been run in an exemplary fashion under the provisions of the Wattle Act, which virtually gives the hon. the Minister he same power to organize the industry and to say to them that if they do not get themselves together and do not organize the industry, he will do so. What happened? The people in the timber industry are in many instances the same people who are concerned in this dispute that is before us now and these same people got down to it and sorted the industry out in a way which was an absolute example of what private enterprise can do.

I once again want to stress the importance of the Forestry Council in this whole situation. The hon. the Minister must tell me who must now take the initiative to establish an organization in which the large growers, the Forest Owners’ Association, the small growers and Satga can be brought together. A very important principle is involved in this, i.e. that there are people who are processors as well as growers. I would have regarded it as being an absolutely ideal situation that they should be an organization which speaks for growers and which can negotiate prices with the processors. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he himself will not take that initiative to try to set up such an organization, because such a formula can be found on the basis of the numbers of the smaller growers—approximately 2 000 people are involved—and on the acreages of the large growers so that a balance can be found which would allow all these people to participate. There is no doubt that the large growers can give a considerable amount of leadership in the timber industry.

They have formed a loose kind of federation.

Yes. That is like the horse and rabbit pie; one horse, one rabbit. We want to avoid that kind of situation if we can, but if they have formed a federation, I would ask the hon. the Minister to do everything in his power to let that federation grow into the sort of organization where there will be a growers’ side and a processors’ side. I think it is entirely reasonable to ask that the grower-processor should be prepared to allow their side of the growing industry to go into an organization. This was the situation when Satga was first founded. I have seen Satga battling for the last 20 years to accommodate a group of people, the large growers’ organization, who paid more attention to the processing side than they did to the growing side. For years the constitution of Satga was not finalized. It was postponed from congress to congress because of the fact that the large growers simply said that they cannot be found for separating their own interests as growers from their interests as processors. I do not believe that these two aspects belong together. A very strong case can be made out for separating them.

Like the sugar industry.

The sugar industry is a classic example. There one has millers who also have substantial growing interests, but the growing side is spoken for and representated by growers.

It is only one product.

The hon. member says it is only one product. That is right. It is easier to organize the industry, but there is no reason why the same principle cannot apply in this particular case. It is not beyond the wit of man to work out a compromise formula which would allow this sort of practice to take place. I have no objection to the large growers putting forward a very strong case before the committee, but I think they should accept the fact that time has come where one body can speak for growers with a much stronger voice than the two for the divided industry that we have today.

When one is going into a situation where there is a surplus, one wants the maximum possible togetherness in the industry. The evidence before us indicates that these people know each other, they are friends; they phone each other all the time and are constantly engaged in negotiations. There is not a war going on between them. They had two sides to put and to argue before the Select Committee, but I am sure that if the hon. the Minister puts it to them in this way, they will be able to come together.

The export argument is not real argument here in South Africa, because we are not a timber exporting country. There is no way in which this country can be a timber exporting country in the long run. We can exploit temporary markets overseas only because we have a down-turn in our economy. It is the basic economic condition in South Africa today which has led us into the situation we have today. If our planting programme continues, there will be a growing surplus of timber and somebody will enter the market and exploit it. I do not want to listen to stories that people do not want to invest money in the industry because of the power that the hon. the Minister has to fix prices. I do not believe these stories for one minute. People are going to make profit out of the timber industry; there is no doubt about it. When the surplus gets big enough, somebody is going to scoop it. So, this is something which I do not accept as an argument at all, and I have pleasure in supporting the Bill at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of his speech the hon. member for Orange Grove made a few remarks which should not go by unremarked. He said inter alia it is only when there is overproduction that the smaller growers are in a difficult competitive position. This was not the testimony of the representatives of those growers before the Select Committee. The hon. member for Mooi River has just said that for years, in fact almost 20 years, the smaller growers have been trying to attain a better bargaining position as far as the prices of their products are concerned.

The hon. member for Orange Grove also said that this amending Bill will result in the bargaining parties having to come to the Minister. This, however, is not what the Bill lays down. The proposed amendment does not say that the Minister “shall” lay down the prices of the specific forestry products. The proposed provision merely says that the hon. the Minister “may” determine the prices, and this makes all the difference.

The hon. member for Orange Grove also laid a great deal of emphasis on and set great store by the argument that our system of free enterprise must be protected. I think the hon. member for Mooi River gave a good reply to those arguments, but I nevertheless want to add something. The hon. member for Orange Grove must not give the impression that we ‘are living in an absolutely free, capitalist economic system in the present world conditions. Control by the State over the economic systems has developed over many years. The entire world economy is being controlled. I want to refer to an article entitled “The scales of industry” in the Financial Mail on 12 May. The summary of the author’s finding reads: “The ideal: A balance between the State and the private sector”. You will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to quote two paragraphs from the article. With reference to a document about certain policy statements by the Federated Chamber of Industries of South Africa, the writer says, inter alia, the following—

I quoted this in order to illustrate that if we should consider as true the statement by the hon. member for Orange Grove, to the effect that what we have here is intervention on the part of the Government, this would not necessarily mean the end of the world. In his speech the hon. member repeated most of the arguments which the large capital-rich forces in the forestry industry, especially in the processing industry, advanced before the Select Committee. The big money advances these arguments, but those people are merely fighting for their own sectoral interests. The larger their profits, the more satisfied their shareholders are and the more they put in their own pockets. However, they pay little heed to the thousands of small growers—hon. members have referred to them—that are cast on their mercy.

I want to illustrate the lack of consistency in the arguments of these representatives of the big money, arguments which they advanced in the Select Committee, as well as the arguments of the hon. member for Orange Grove, on the basics of the contents of clause 9 of this Bill. Section 30, which is referred to in clause 9, deals mainly with sawtimber from State forests. Clause 9 of the Bill proposes the amendment of section 30 by the addition of the following subsection—

1. (2) Whenever on revision of prices of forest produce derived from State forests and in respect of which contracts of sale for a period of five years or longer have been concluded, a dispute arises on which, in the opinion of the Minister, agreement cannot be reached, such dispute shall be submitted to arbitration.

This clause contains precisely the same principle as clause 5 of the Bill. According to my information, the Lumber Millers Association, one of the bodies that was strongly opposed to the provisions of clause 5 before the Select Committee, requested the hon. the Minister to amend section 30 of the Act in this way in order to provide for any checkmate situation that may arise between them and the Department of Forestry. The only difference lies in the fact that since the Department of Forestry is one of the parties, they could not allow the Minister to determine the price, but would have to bring in an arbitrator from outside. I have not yet heard anyone in the Select Committee nor in the House objecting to the provisions of clause 9; however, the opposite is true of the provisions of clause 5, which is based on exactly the same principle. This adequately illustrates how hollow peoples’ arguments sometimes are when they are fighting for their own interests.

Where did clause 5 originate? The hon. member for Humansdorp indicated that it emanates from findings and recommendations in the report presented by the Malherbe Committee. That committee was appointed at the request of the smaller growers. They made their representations to the hon. the Minister, who in turn asked the Forestry Council to investigate the marketing of roundwood, and to make recommendations concerning a marketing system for such wood. It is very interesting to note that in its report, the committee did not recommend a new marketing system at all, as its terms of reference actually implied. The committee argued that the existing marketing system, based on free enterprise, should remain. The committee did however recommend improvements in the existing marketing system.

In contrast with many other sectors of the agricultural industry—timber is an agricultural product too—the forestry industry finds itself in unique situations. It experiences characteristic problems that differ completely from the problems connected with other agricultural products and industries. Firstly, there are various interest groups within the forestry industry that do not always co-operate. Hon. members have referred to the different groups. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Mooi River in his appeal to the department and the hon. the Minister that they should make an effort to eliminate the polarization between the interest groups. I want to make an appeal to the whole industry and the interest groups within the industry to organize themselves so as to form a unified front so that it will never be necessary for the hon. the Minister to use the powers vested in him in terms of clause 5.