Mr. Chairman, I should like to request the privilege of the half hour.

The word “crisis” is perhaps used too frequently in this House. With regard to the agricultural industry, hon. members will agree with me, however, that this industry has now come very close to a crisis point. The farmer of South Africa expects a clearly stated agricultural policy from the Government today and on Monday. I wish to give a few reasons why I say that.

Of the approximately 70 000 farmers in our country, an ever smaller percentage are in the prime of their lives today. In other words, ever fewer numbers of young men are entering the agricultural industry because they simply cannot make an attractive economic livelihood there. The result will be that not only the agricultural sector, but the South African rural areas as well, will be drained of young blood. When I speak of the rural areas, it seems to me as if they, our towns, hotels, shops, light industries, etc., are very closely associated with the agricultural industry and the agricultural community. The one is completely dependent on the other. A serious setback in the agricultural sector helps to destroy the entire rural areas, and contributes towards a faster depopulation of those areas of South Africa. It is already the case that one finds empty houses which are deteriorating in virtually every town. Most schools in the rural areas are not full any more. The number of pupils who attend those schools, is also decreasing.

When one travels through the South African rural areas, it is also noticeable how the maintenance of buildings, houses, barns, pens, and labourers’ houses is often deteriorating. The reason for this is not the fact that the farmer is indifferent to these aspects. The opposite is true, but because the farmer has to have priorities with regard to spending his money, it often happens that he puts himself and his workers second. It is at present exceptional to see and to come across well-kept farming units.

What are “well-kept” farming units?

I am sorry, it was a slip of the tongue. When one comes across these beautiful farms, the buildings of which are maintained as one would like them to be, they are usually the larger units which are able to maintain them. Often one will also find that those farms have been in the hands of that particular family for generations. Therefore they are able to afford it.

The small- and medium-scale farmers are being driven away from the agricultural industry. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the Government what the Government policy is with regard to agriculture and what they are going to do to help prevent the small- and medium-scale farmers from being economically destroyed and driven off their farms. That is what is in fact happening. There will have to be replies to these questions. We shall have to discuss the matter and see whether replies are going to be given.

One asks oneself: What is the cause of this deterioration in agriculture? I think the reasons are, in the first place, that the prices of the farmer’s input have increased to such an extent in over recent years that agriculture is at present the most hazardous industry in South Africa. The situation is such that even if the farmer could get an average harvest, he would possibly or quite probably not recover his harvest investment. If he had a bad harvest, he would simply have failed for that year and his debts would simply continue to grow.

The Government has attempted to determine realistic prices for agricultural products. In spite of this, the farmer’s burden of debt has increased and the return on his capital investment remains very low. It has to be emphasized that the agricultural sector is still experiencing great problems, in spite of good harvests over the past few years. Between the years 1971 and 1977 the prices of agricultural requirements rose by 118%, while producers’ prices rose by only 98% over tire same period. The Government therefore was unable or not prepared to adjust the producer’s prices of all products in accordance with the increasing production costs. The Government and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture made an attempt to do so, but it was not possible to cause those fixed prices to keep pace with the increasing production costs. That also caused certain sectors of the agricultural industry to deteriorate to a greater extent than others.

If one looks at the higher prices the farmer had to pay for his production means over the same period, they seem alarming. The prices of all farming requirements showed an average increase of 12% between 1971 and 1978. If one now wants to make a distinction, however, it is clear that some of the price increases are far in excess of others.

The price of fertilizer, for example, increased by 14% between 1977 and 1978. The cost of fuel increased by 9%. The cost of fodder increased by 17%. The price of tractors increased by 19%. The farmer has had no control over all these price increases, and one wonders whether the time has not come to look at the increase in the price of fertilizer, for example, for the price of this commodity is increased every year. One wonders whether something cannot be done about the increase in the price of fuel. I shall discuss the price of fodder later. Suggestions have already been made in regard to the increase in the price of tractors, and I hope the hon. the Minister will keep on trying to do something about the high tax which contributes towards increasing the price.

In the period to which I referred, the average producer’s price increased by only 3%. The costs increased by 12% and the price the farmer received for his product, increased by only 3%. Once again, however, the improved income was not the same for all agricultural products, and we shall have to look at the price increases in certain sectors of the agricultural industry.

In the first place, I want to refer to the price of maize. In the period to which I referred, the price of maize increased by 12%. The price of grain did not increase at all. The price of garden produce increased by 6%. The price of fruit increased by 2%. No percentage has been indicated for stock farming products. There was a decrease in the average price for slaughter stock. Farmers in the dairy industry received less for their produce, while there was a 4% decrease in the price of wool.

If one looks at these figures, it is clear that only the maize producers prices have kept pace with the increasing production costs.

You are talking nonsense.

The figures prove that this is the case and if the hon. member thinks that I am talking nonsense, he must prove the opposite in his speech.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

When I have finished my speech, the hon. member may certainly ask a question. I am not afraid to reply to a question.

The biggest consumers of maize are other farmers: Dairy farmers, slaughter stock farmers, pig farmers, chicken farmers, etc. If one looks at the increase in the prices of the products of those farmers * over the same period of time, one will see that they are the people who had the smallest, the least improvement in their prices. I do not want to suggest that the maize farmer did not deserve the price increase he received in terms of the increase in his production costs, but I want to suggest that it is becoming increasingly apparent to me that the maize lobby is stronger than any other agricultural group in this House.

Your people refer to the wine lobby, don’t they?

The wine men can speak about that If we look at the price of fodder, we see that a very large percentage of that price consists of the maize price, and the price of fodder rose by 17%. Here it is a case of farmer exploiting farmer. I should therefore like to hear what the hon. the Minister can do to rectify this situation because I think it is rather important. The fact that the prices of production means have increased more rapidly than producers’ prices, results in an ever-increasing burden of debt for the farmer. If one looks at the figures over the past few years—and I do not want to quote a lot of figures here—one sees that the burden of debt of the farmer is now approximating R3 000 million, and there is no indication that something will be done at this stage to cause a reversal of that tendency.

I come now to the low return on capital which has been invested in the agricultural sector. It is certainly the sector in the economy which shows the lowest return on investment capital. The figures which are given, indicate a return of 6% to 7%. That will have the effect that ever fewer organizations and farmers with substantial capital resources will invest in this industry. Something will have to be done about this as well, and again it is the hon. the Minister of Agriculture who will have to spell out a policy for us.

It is essential to increase the prices of agricultural products. It is absolutely essential to do so. I am referring, for instance, to the price of milk, meat, vegetables, etc., but to simply say that where prices can be controlled, we are simply going to increase them and that the consumer will simply have to pay more, is not the answer. More than that has to be done. [Interjections.] I fear we are now reaching the point where there will no longer be increased consumption of the products by the consumers. They will simply consume less milk, meat, etc., and where shall we be then? Then we shall have higher prices, but a dwindling consumer market.

Even if the consumer market of South Africa is fully exploited, it really is too small to utilize the total production of the agricultural sector in South Africa. In the first place, we should therefore see what can be done to expand the domestic market as rapidly and to as great an extent as possible. In the second place, we must look to exports wherever we can. In this regard the Government will have to assist the farmer.

We have a number of control boards in South Africa. However, I should like to regard them as marketing boards, because the function of these boards, surely, is not only to ensure orderly marketing, but also to expand the markets for the particular products as much as possible, in order to encourage the use and consumption of agricultural products. We shall have to look at that.

We have various problems, of course, in exporting our products. One of the major problems that has to be solved, is that there is a tendency abroad to preferably buy from another country if the quality of the product is the same and the prices are competitive. That is so for political reasons. It is a pity that that is the case. At this stage, however, it is indeed the case. It is essential, for the benefit of agriculture and the farmer, that the Government should do all it can to try and normalize relations with our export partners, for only if that is done will agriculture come into its own in South Africa.

I wish to remind hon. members—and with that I conclude—that the problem is not a case of the farmer not knowing how to farm. We can produce far more than we are already producing. The problem is the increasing production costs and the low price the farmers receive for their produce. Those are the problems we are facing. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to deal specifically with these matters and to explain to us what the Government policy in regard to this matter is.

Mr. Chairman, while the hon. member for Wynberg had 30 minutes, I only have 10 minutes at my disposal and I am unfortunately unable to deal with all the matters he raised here. I agree with a lot of them, but the fact is that it is the NP which takes the initiative in the House with regard to agriculture. All the little matters the hon. member mentioned here in order to identify the problems have already been raised by us over the past two years. At the beginning of last year we had an agriculture motion before us which was discussed in depth. The question of input, burden of debt and return on capital was discussed in detail. This side of the House introduced an agriculture motion again this year.

Explain what you are going to do about it.

You are leaving the farmers in the lurch.

*Mr. G. J. KOTZÉ: I am coming to that. The hon. member must be patient. As I have said, this side of the House again introduced an agriculture motion at the beginning of this year in which we specifically examined the inputs in agriculture and the problems we are experiencing with them. The party on the other side hopes and takes a real delight in the possibility of a so-called crisis, as the hon. member put it.

Do you deny it?

They have no future in the rural areas. If a crisis could arise in agriculture, however, they hope to gain a little political capital out of it.

You are wasting your 10 minutes.

The hon. member referred to the agricultural policy. This side of the House has an agricultural policy which has been determined over the years in cooperation with organized agriculture. Consultation between the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and the agricultural group on this side of the House on the one hand, and organized agriculture on the other hand, takes place continuously.

Organized Broederbond!

I want to say that it is the NP which represents agriculture in the House. The initiative in agricultural matters is constantly being taken by this side of the House.

That is why agriculture is in such a state.

Let us just take a look at which members on this side of the House represent agriculture. We have the hon. member for Bethal, who is chairman of the ETK (Eastern Transvaal Co-operative) and of Sensako, the Central Seed Co-operative, and who was also the chairman of a commission of inquiry into marketing matters. We have the hon. member for Carletonville who is the chairman of the Maize Board. We have the hon. member for Heilbron who is chairman of the Dairy Board. A large number of members on this side of the House are or were directors of co-operatives.

Why is the fanner then in such a poor position?

They are people who know agriculture.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Here is my hon. benchmate who served on the Wool Board for many years and who is vice chairman of the National Woolgrowers’ Association. Who is better able to speak on behalf of agriculture than this side of the House?

Then why are you not doing something?

It is easy to identify problems, as the hon. member for Wynberg did. All of us can identify problems.

But you cannot solve those problems.

All of us know what the problems in agriculture are. We on this side of the House are realistic enough to know that many of the problems which are at present being experienced in agriculture, are not necessarily the result of a defective policy, but the result of world conditions, of world-wide inflation. The agricultural sector is also affected by imported inflation. The price of the machinery a farmer has to use, is not determined here, but abroad. We are dealing with a recession with all its side effects, a recession which is not the result of the Government’s actions. At present there is a drought in this country. Believe me, if the hon. the Minister was able to make it rain, he would have done so.

That is the Government’s fault. We are being punished for your sins. [Interjections.]

The inflationary and the recessionary situation is responsible for the fact that the profit margins in the industry have declined. We are aware of that and we are struggling with the problem.

But what are you doing about the problem?

We are coming to that. I shall tell the hon. member in a moment. We are dealing with low world prices. If we export our surpluses to foreign countries, who has to bear the losses we suffer in respect of such exports?

As I said, it is easy to identify the problems, but it is not so easy to find the solutions. The hon. member for Wynberg had 30 minutes and he spoke, he moaned and groaned, but he did not suggest a single solution. What is the solution? This side of the House is struggling with the problems in agriculture and the solutions to them. That is not so simple. I agree with the hon. member that it may be true that the solution is not to be found in increased prices only. It is true that if one increases the maize price or the wheat price, for example, one causes a certain amount of distortion in the economy. We have to keep in mind the fact that we cannot increase prices abnormally without hurting the consumer in this country. We have to look after the consumer and therefore we cannot simply keep on increasing the prices.

We can look at the role of the State as a possible solution. There are 41 Votes. One of the most difficult problems the hon. the Minister of Finance experiences, is to present a balanced budget. I personally feel that agriculture should enjoy a high priority, but that is not something one can pass judgment on in a desultory way. One cannot simply say that the hon. the Minister gave us R279 million this year, but that he should have given us R500 million.

Yes, he should have.

I agree with the hon. member on that I believe that we should have received more, but let us be realistic and say that the solution lies in having a balanced economy. It is easy to play cheap politics by saying that the Government should give us more money, but we should consider the economy as a whole. I should like to suggest that we must take another look at the priority agriculture should have when we discuss the budget I feel that we must remove certain things from our agricultural budget I feel that we must remove all consumer subsidies from the agricultural budget and that we should delegate responsibility for that to either the hon. the Minister of Finance or the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs.

We suggested that last year already.

We must regard whatever remains as a budget which is aimed at the promotion of agricultural production. The promotion of agricultural production includes everything. It includes agricultural technical services, extension and everything which falls under agricultural technical services. The promotion of agricultural production also includes financing the farmer for continued production. It also includes the amounts which have to be budgeted for in order to create an orderly marketing system. Many of the costs we have at present, are indirect costs.

The question of extension, if I may use that as an example, I basically regard as an obligation of the Government. At present, the extension officers are drawn to the cooperatives and the control boards and they are often drawn away from agriculture, but now the Government is no longer paying for it. The co-operatives now pay those people’s salaries and the farmer pays for them indirectly. Eventually it is a factor which increases his production costs. If we move in this direction, viz. that we discuss the promotion of agricultural production in a responsible way, we will get somewhere, but simply to say in a desultory way that such and such a price should be increased and that the Government should give more, is senseless and in fact gets us nowhere.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Malmesbury. When one is conducting a debate on agriculture, one would like to do so on a high level and remain outside the political arena, because we are living in a time when this is so important. However, one cannot allow the hon. member for Wynberg to go unanswered. He started by making a very moderate speech, but he very soon began to make indirect attacks on the Government When he was discussing price adjustments, he tried to get in a blow by saying that the Government was not prepared or able to make price adjustments. To my mind, that was petty politics, because he tried in the same speech to get in a blow with regard to the adjustments which have been made in the maize price this year. One can see that that hon. member is in a dilemma. He did not know how to play his cards, and then he found himself in difficulties.

However, there are aspects to which the hon. member referred and in respect of which I agree with him. Therefore I also feel that it is necessary for us to conduct a debate on agriculture on a very healthy level and to discuss it in order to solve the problems confronting us collectively, as a House. I think it is time for us to talk about the situation of agriculture very clearly.

I have a growing impression that the public outside and many of our hon. members here in the House think that when the financial problems and the position of the farmer are being discussed, it is just another lamentation and that the farmers are beggars in search of subsidies and cheap financial help. I wish to say clearly and unequivocally that the farmer is not a beggar. Because agriculture plays a key role in the national economy as a producer of food, an earner of foreign exchange and as an employer, it is essential that we should place agriculture on a very healthy basis once and for all, and as soon as possible. South Africa has always been known as the food store of Africa. If we do not set our house in order, that position will change very soon and then we shall become an importer of food instead of an exporter.

When we look at the reports, we see that produce prices rose by 105% during the five years preceding 1977, while production costs rose by 134%. The profit margin is disappearing and could be completely eliminated. No industry can continue to exist without a profit.

There are a few factors which we should look at very seriously. We have a lot to say about the obligation of the Government, but, in my opinion, it is necessary, in the first place, that the farmer should set his house in order himself. On his part he should begin in the first place by eliminating uneconomic practices and saving wherever and whenever it is possible. Farming is an extremely highly specialized science which cannot be practised without planning, particularly financial planning. Therefore it is essential that thorough attention should be paid to planning an enterprise before starting it. Heavy demands are made on the managerial skill of the farmer today and he is forced by circumstances to devote more and more attention to the financial aspects of his enterprise.

The importance of retaining the farmer and the small farmer—I wish to state categorically that retaining the small farmer on his farm in my opinion, plays a very important role in this regard—has to be realized and we have to be prepared to face up to the facts and to make it our task to see to it that agriculture is on a sound footing. Therefore, we cannot afford to be sentimental about this any longer.

The farmer has to know and realize that he is engaged in an extremely specialized scientific enterprise. An industry survey which was carried out by the Agricultural Production Economy Division with regard to the 1977-’78 production year in the most important maize producing area on the Eastern Transvaal Highveld indicated that the average farming expenditure per farming unit, as measured over comparable units, was R97 000. To that must be added provision for depreciation on the purchase price of vehicles, the erection of fixed improvements and interest, which are factors which were not even included in this calculation. The average income for those particular farming units was R146 000 per annum. It is very clear from this—taking into account the vicissitudes of nature—that our farmers are engaged in a very high risk venture. One could mention more figures in this regard, but to my mind that would be unnecessary for the purpose of my argument. The time does not allow it either.

I should like to say that it is the responsibility of the farmer himself to employ practices enabling him to budget properly, in order to eliminate uneconomic undertakings. The farmer has to concentrate on generating his own capital and also on using available funds in the industry from which the greatest possible benefit and profit can be derived. He also has to try to effect savings in every possible field. A very important requirement to which we should constantly pay more attention, is a very proper bookkeeping system for the farmer.

To summarize, I may say that it is the responsibility of the farmer to display sound and specialized managerial skills. If he does that, the farmer makes it possible for us to look at the other side of the matter.

The figures I have just given, prove that a minimum amount of approximately R100 000 per annum is necessary to be able to run an average farming enterprise. The farming industry is today dependent upon financing by the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, which of course have very limited funds. Furthermore, the farming industry also depends upon financing by the banking sector. If one takes into consideration that the capital turnover in agriculture is relatively slow; that production is subject to high risks; that an interest of less than 7% on capital in a relatively good farming year hardly offers an incentive to capital formation; and that the farmer does not have the bargaining power to pass costs onto the consumer, and we want food prices to be on such a level that they will not cause the cost of living to soar and in that way encourage inflation, then we must realize that agriculture cannot compete with other sectors in the money market at prevailing rates. Therefore we have to realize that we have to take a thorough look at the situation. I am convinced that the Government realizes how serious the matter is, in contrast to what the hon. member for Wynberg tried to imply. If we take into account the appointment of the Jacobs Committee, a committee which has to carry out an in-depth investigation and make recommendations with regard to short- and long-term financing in agriculture, and the rate at which the committee is working—it has in fact already brought out its first report—we realize how seriously the Government is approaching the matter. I believe that committee will certainly make good recommendations, and we are looking forward to its final report. We shall simply be unable to avoid the reality. This House has a tremendous responsibility to see that sound steps are taken to counteract the increase in production costs drastically and to work on a scheme in terms of which financing can be made available to agriculture on a sound basis. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in this same debate last year, I had reason to express my concern about the fact that in spite of four successive good agricultural years, farmers had not been able to pay their debt to the Land Bank and to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. However, I believe that one cannot participate in a debate of this nature without thanking the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture for the way in which they are handling this very difficult task. When I refer to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister, two people who are personally concerned with this difficult task, I believe that one should not leave other hon. members of the Cabinet out of the picture.

When one looks at the budget and the committee to which the hon. member for Middelburg also referred, everyone must realize that the problems in agriculture are a matter of great concern to the Government. I do not want to refer to the farmer today as an instrument in the process of production, but I want to refer to agriculture as a very essential part of our national economy as a whole. We have vast mineral resources. Our industries have developed very rapidly. We have much to be grateful for. However, we have this sector of our economy which is going through a very difficult period, especially at present. Now I want to agree with what has already been said here, and what I understand has also been said by the Jacobs Committee as well as by the hon. the Minister of Finance, and that is that subsidies are not the solution. Subsidies are already having a very negative effect on the farmer as well as the consumer, especially where they are used to keeping the prices of agricultural products at an artificially low level. We agree with that. However, we have another problem in agriculture. That is that the constantly rising prices of agricultural products cannot solve the problem either. It just makes the problem more difficult for the individual farmers. When he is expecting a harvest of 4 000 bags of maize at a price of R10 a bag, he is therefore expecting R40 000. If he has a crop failure, it therefore means a loss of R40 000 to him, a loss he has to recover during the next year before he can begin again.

Now, the problems of the farmer really come from a long way back. I want to speak with great appreciation today of the boards and officials of the Land Bank and of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Those people are as accommodating as the law allows them to be. I believe that agriculture owes a debt of gratitude to those two bodies. Let us just look at the position this year. The price of maize has been increased by 25%. The estimated harvest will be only 60%. In the light of this we know that in spite of this high price, the total income of the maize producer is much lower than last year. Therefore he has no means of forming capital. The way in which agriculture was financed in the past was by borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. The price of land was rising and farmers were consequently able to obtain bigger loans, not only from the Land Bank and through Agricultural Credit, but from private bodies as well. We have come to the point where it is simply no longer possible for these people to finance farmers by means of loans. A method must be found of reducing the cost of inputs. I think it is also in the interests of the country that these costs be reduced, for the higher the costs, the higher the ultimate price of the product must be. There is no one in this country, young or old, who does not eat. Therefore everyone pays for these increased costs. If we can reduce the cost at the starting point, this must have a beneficial effect on the inflation rate and we must then have a better bargaining power in the foreign market. We must bear in mind that if the prices of products keep rising to keep pace with the production costs, we shall come to a point where we shall have to work with greater export losses, and these have to be financed. I therefore think it would be in the interests of the entire agricultural sector to start obtaining funds now to ensure that our production costs are lowered. Even the prices of products may go down, as long as the farmer receives a reasonable income from his production. However, a method must also be found of enabling these people to form new capital.

A further problem is in connection with the Subdivision of Land Act. An ordinary man in industry can expand his production by 5%, 10%, or 20%, as the need arises. However, this is not possible in the agricultural sector. If a man has to expand his unit, he has to purchase another economic unit. He therefore has to invest much more capital than his need for expansion really requires. I think that one of our major problems in the agricultural sector today is that we are totally overcapitalized in respect of our means of production and the land itself, as a result of circumstances completely beyond the control of the farmers. In industry one may speak of a utilization of 60% or 80% of capital, but in the agricultural sector this is simply not possible, because all the means of production a farmer requires are used only for a very short period of the year. In spite of all the attention which the Government is giving to this situation, we have now come to the stage where a farmer is being driven from the agricultural sector merely because he cannot pay his debt in respect of one tractor. This is an unhealthy situation, not only for the agricultural sector as such, but especially for the consumer. In speaking of the consumer, I am not excluding the farmer, since he is just as much a consumer as any other person in the community.

I therefore think that the solution lies in finding a method of reducing the cost of production and, together with that, the ultimate price of one’s agricultural products. This would benefit the country as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, the three hon. members on that side of the House who have spoken have made certain points which I hope to deal with during the course of my speech. I must say that it was very interesting to hear from the hon. member for Losberg “hoe mense nou met ’n ander man se kalf ploeg”. It is my heifer which is being ploughed with. [Interjections.] I call the hon. the Minister as my witness that when we talked about reducing the input costs of farmers… [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister, being an honest and fair-minded person, will admit that on three occasions last year, namely during the budget debate, during the debate on the imposition of sales tax and during the Third Reading of the budget, I personally made the point that the most important aspect of the agricultural industry was to attack input costs.

I remember the wrinkled frowns on the brows of all the hon. members on the other side of the House as they were trying to figure out what the devil I was talking about. I must say that it is a great pleasure to join in with the new thought in the NP that input costs should be reduced. I congratulate the hon. members for bringing this new idea into the agricultural scene. I am sure that together we are going to achieve something which will be of the utmost importance for the maize industry and the farming industry as a whole. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that what has happened now, with the new increase in the maize price, is a watershed in the agricultural policy of South Africa For many years Governments followed a policy of cheap food for South Africa. The days of cheap food are, however, over and will not come back; they cannot possibly be reinstated. The price which has been decided upon for maize this year, is not the end of the story. The price will probably go up again next year. What we have here is a temporary palliative, something designed, by the size of the increase, to attempt to pay back to the farming community something of what they have lost over the years as a result of a policy of keeping the price of food down for the mass of the public. The problem is that a capital debt has built up in the agricultural industry. During the budget debate the hon. member for Bethal mentioned a figure and voiced his concern about it. My concern, however, goes beyond the amount of money owed by the farming industry to financial institutions. The amount is indeed very high. But over and above that there is a capital debt owing to the soil, because many people have been practising farming methods which have taken more out of the soil than has been put into the soil. One of these days, we as a farming community in South Africa are going to have to repay that debt to the soil. I agree entirely with hon. members who have spoken about subsidies.

I have gone on record as being totally opposed to subsidies, but somewhere or other in the structure of maize prices, or food prices as a whole, the farmer’s price is going to have to reach a stage where he can accumulate capital to repay to the soil in terms of fertilization at optimum level. That is something which we will have to face very soon. I think the hon. the Minister has taken the first step in doing so, and I want to welcome the increase in the maize price. There are, however, certain problems arising from this which I want to deal with.

The hon. member for Losberg mentioned that we had a 60% crop this year. There is no doubt about it that we have had the five or six good years and now we can see the lean years emerging out of the river, as in the days of Joseph to eat up the crops in Egypt The lean years are coming. I think we have to be very conscious indeed of what is involved. I want to raise this once again with the hon. the Minister. I have made this point consistently. This is the fourth of fifth time that I am raising it, the point about the contribution the Government itself makes to raising the input costs of the farmers. The Government makes an undoubted contribution to these costs. One can merely take the excise duty on tractors, which was lowered from 12½% to 7½% this year. The director of the S.A. Agricultural Union openly called this a totally unnecessary imposition on the farming community. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to appoint a committee consisting of representatives of the Department of Finance, Economic Affairs and his department to investigate how the Government, by means of import duties, excise duties and all those sort of things, push up the input costs of farmers. I also include the sales tax in this. I want to make the point that there is a sales tax on the diesoline used by the farmers to transport his products from his farm to the market—and we will raise this in other debates with the hon. the Minister of Finance. Of what conceivable use to South Africa is food that is still on the farm? Why is it not possible for the farmer to consider the diesoline he uses to deliver his product to the market as part of his costs which is free of sales tax? Only when he reaches the market does realization take place—not on the farm. The products have to be delivered to the market. Why is it that the farmer, in terms of Government action, has to pay sales tax for delivering his product to the market? I think any reasonable person will ask this question. There are many anomalies in the application of the sales tax whereby the farmers are directly prejudiced.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

Well, I can sit down right now because my point has been made. [Interjections.] We shall be taking this matter up with the hon. the Minister of Finance because in many ways the members of the farming community have had their input costs, just to get their crops into the ground, increased by actions on the part of the Government. I shall be taking this matter further. I have now raised it with the hon. the Minister.

The point I want to make, before my time runs out is the point that was made by the hon. member for Wynberg. He spoke about people who use maize for their own production. I have said that I am totally opposed to subsidies, but there are many small-scale producers, particularly of pigs and chickens, in my constituency who use maize, and they are going to be very seriously prejudiced indeed. What has happened is that the hon. the Minister has raised the price of maize, not only on the new crop, but also on maize currently in storage. So people who are buying maize which was harvested last year are now going to have to pay the increased price. What happens to that money? Can the hon. the Minister tell me who is going to get that money? Is it going to the Maize Board? I would ask old Ben what he is going to do, but unfortunately he is not here. What is that money going to be used for? I should like to see that price adjusted for bona fide farmers who have a certificate in terms of the sales tax regulations so that they can get the maize at a reduced price. Otherwise, opposed though I am to subsidies, I must ask the hon. the Minister to have a subsidy paid to help the small farmers because it is the hon. the Minister who is going to have to deal with the resulting situation.

There are many small farmers, who are battling on the very edge of survival, who are now going to go under completely. The hon. the Minister is consequently going to be faced with a rash of applications for assistance. The Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure is going to have people beating on its doors in ever-increasing numbers as a result of one action on the part of the hon. the Minister. In the budget debate, I raised the point I said that no provision has been made in the budget to solve the problem that the increased maize price is going to pose to farmers. I told the hon. the Minister there would be an increase of at least 15%, though probably 20%. I think it is only common sense for the hon. the Minister to make some kind of provision for this. He cannot do so, however, but I know that if he could, he would.

The answer lies with the hon. the Minister of Finance. What we have to do is to get organized agriculture and the agricultural group in the House to approach the hon. the Minister and tell him that there are farmers who use maize on an extensive scale as part of their input. By pushing up the prices to the extent that they have been pushed up, one is going to have those people going under. Some provision has therefore to be made. I know, however, that what we shall be told is that there is no money. We shall be told that the State cannot afford it because there is no money. There are means available to the State, however, means whereby money can be made available on a scale which would solve the problem.

The problem is not that people do not want to buy the farmers’ products. The problem is that we are operating today in a depressed consumer market. Things are beginning to look up, however, because people are starting to find jobs and the market is expanding, but I imagine it will take a period of two years before the consumer market reaches a normal level and will be able to take, from the farmers’ market, the increased production at an increased price. I think that that is the problem we face. It is a question of bridging finance—if one wants to use that term—to tide us over. Now the farmer’s products are starting to go up in price, but then one runs into consumer resistance from the housewife who is not prepared to pay the increased prices. The price of milk will go up. The hon. the Minister will put it up. We know that. Floor prices of beef and pork must also go up. As soon as one does that, however, one finds a fall-off in consumption. This has happened to the milk farmer. Every time there has been an increase in price, there has been a fall-off in consumption. One is therefore not gaining. There will be people who will go out of business in the milk industry, in spite of an increase in the price, because at present there is not a market for the production. Last year or the year before a levy actually had to be paid on milk that was produced over and above the stipulated quota. I think it was 6c a litre or something like that. We cannot go on with a situation like this. Let me tell the hon. the Minister what I believe it is vitally necessary for him to do. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member says we are ploughing with his heifers. I am very sure that I am also responsible for at least one of the heifers he is referring to, if not for all.

It is a good team.

Mr. Chairman, it will get us nowhere to shout at one another about crisis in agriculture, etc. That will get us nowhere. We shall have to start thinking responsibly about agriculture. I do not think any of the Opposition parties has any hope of making political capital out of the crisis, if one wants to call it that, in which agriculture finds itself at the moment. I think hon. members will agree with me. Therefore we can argue in a rational way about problems in agriculture.

If we want to solve the problems in agriculture, we have to look at the fundamentals. In doing so, we must proceed from the point of view that the solution to the problems in agriculture do not lie with the farmers and with agriculture itself only. In actual fact, our agriculture is basically sound. When problem situations have arisen in agriculture—and the best known problem situation in agriculture is drought—we have always been able, in the ’sixties, for example, to make effective use of the machinery available to us in order to overcome the problems. However, the problem with which agriculture has to contend at the moment is a new one, a problem with which agriculture is not so familiar and which it has never encountered before. I am referring to the price-cost squeeze problem which is being experienced. This is something which has taken agriculture unawares.

We have really—let us be honest—been caught on the wrong foot in this connection. This is due to inflation, which did not originate in this country, but was imported from abroad. In this way, for example, there is the price of fuel. We have no control over that. Nor do we have any control over the price of tractors. These basic inputs have such an enormous economic impact on field husbandry in agriculture that they are simply wreaking havoc with prices.

What about the tax on those commodities?

As I have said, we must look at the fundamentals. When one does this in agriculture, one must proceed from the point of view that the primary function of agriculture is the provision of food. Then, if one wants to set the economic processes in motion, there are two implications. Firstly, it must be a profitable enterprise for the agricultural entrepreneur, i.e. the farmer. Secondly—and this is very important—the consumer is just as closely involved in agriculture as the farmer himself. This means that he must be able to afford the agricultural products. If he cannot afford them, problems arise. Therefore we must see agriculture as being linked to the total economy of South Africa. It does not belong only to the farmer or to the rural areas, but to the total economy; and the total economy, and not only the Government, is responsible for the success of agriculture as well as for the solution of problems in agriculture.

Let me say that the impact of this situation on the consumer can be very serious. A food product is not a luxury product. It is not something which can fluctuate up and down like the stock exchange. A kilogram of meat cannot cost R5 today and R1 tomorrow. Nor is it comparable with a bottle of cooldrink which may cost R1 today. Bread is an essential foodstuff. It is not a thing of which the price can move up and down. There must be stability as far as the food products are concerned, otherwise we are going to get the situation that if the consumer cannot really afford his food—mind, it represents 20% of his total expenditure—this can have such an effect on the salary and wage structure that enormous pressure will be brought to bear by the salaried sector, leading to additional cost inflation in this connection. That is why we have a price control system in agriculture which watches over producer prices. However, no producer price can be determined—now I am talking specially about staple foods such as wheat and maize—without the position of the consumer being taken into consideration. In other words, one finds oneself in a kind of dilemma here. Lately, food prices have been determined after the position of the consumer had been taken into consideration, but in the meantime there has been such a rapid rise in the costs in the short-term that the price which has been determined is obsolete by the time it has to be properly realized.

I want to agree with the hon. members for Mooi River and Losberg. Because agriculture is the responsibility of the economy as a whole, the industrial leaders and economists in agriculture—not only the hon. the Minister and those of us who are sitting here—must realize that all the norms that are applied cannot always be applied to agriculture as well, because agriculture is basically a very hazardous industry. In other words, one will have to look at the tax system, the financing system and the marketing system in agriculture. We are fully confident that the Jacobs Committee, a permanent committee which is now sitting and which consists of Dr. Jacobs, the manager of Reserve Bank, and representatives of the Department of Finance and the Department of Economic Affairs, will discuss these financing problems and the general financial position in agriculture and make recommendations.

However, we are finding in agriculture this cost problem over which we have no control. I agree that we shall have to look at these cost inputs, because we cannot keep increasing prices ad infinitum; we shall run into difficulties. The risk in the production sector is tremendously increased by excessively high prices of agricultural products. That is also true.

There is one field which is very dangerous and which we shall have to examine very seriously, and that is the question of fertilization, the plant nourishment in the soil. There is a tendency among farmers today to determine the phosphate content of their soil. Over the years, as a result of intensive fertilization in their attempt to obtain higher production per unit, they have had high fertilizer inputs. The farmer determines, inter alia, the phosphate level in the soil. Phosphate is the most important plant food which our soil requires. He may then find that the phosphate level in the soil is particularly high, and what does he do then in order to economize? He starts cutting down on his fertilizer account. This is not the responsibility of the farmer and of agriculture alone. We are concerned here with soil fertility which is in the national interest. In asking for fertilizer subsidies, we are not asking for a subsidy for the farmer only, but also for a subsidy for the soil and soil fertility of South Africa. For this reason I say that in asking for subsidies or, to put it differently, the promotion of agricultural production, we are acting in the national interest and not specifically in the interests of the farmer. The consumer must take cognizance of the fact that these amounts of money which are used to promote production do not necessarily belong to the farmers, but to the whole economy of South Africa.

There is another dangerous production input in agriculture to which we shall have to give attention while there is still time. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs made an announcement some time ago about the engine factory in Atlantis. This is a project in which between R180 million and R200 million is to be invested to make us less dependent on the outside world as far as the sources of power of our engines are concerned. The contribution of agriculture lies in the fact that it creates an outlet for approximately 17 000 to 18 000 tractors. The present position in the tractor market in South Africa is that the demand has dropped to approximately 10 000 tractors a year. To make the Atlantis project economic, a production of approximately 50 000 engines a year must be maintained. Now one is concerned with a situation in agriculture which is different from that in all the other sectors. These engines can be economically mounted in trucks and in Defence Force equipment, but they cannot be economically mounted in tractors, because the construction of a tractor differs from that of a truck. We have the further problem that there are 17 different companies marketing tractors in South Africa.

A tractor is imported and now one has to mount the Atlantis engine in that tractor. This means, firstly, that the companies are now going to import the tractors in a dismantled condition. The tractor can no longer be imported as a whole; it is now imported in a totally knocked-down condition. It arrives here in boxes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to give the hon. member an opportunity to continue his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member.

Assembly lines will have to be built in South Africa to mount the tractor engines, and the assembly lines will cost money. It can be a good investment, for as the tractor is assembled, a South African content can be built-in. The position is, however, that if the tractor is imported from overseas in a dismantled condition, the bodywork and the transmission still have to be imported. Now the overseas company must alter its production line so that its tractor may be adapted to the Atlantis engine. This is all very well, but the end result of this situation—I do not want to dwell on it—is that in addition to the enormous rise in the price of machinery and tractors which he has to import, the South African farmer will most probably have to pay an additional 15% to 17% for the Atlantis project. Once again we have the position that agriculture is not economically well integrated with such a project Therefore we must examine these matters while we still have time. We must not wait until the price of tractors has risen to an impossible level and then try to take certain measures. Then the impression is created that we are giving bonanzas to agriculture again. We must determine in advance exactly what the effect of this is going to be.

I conclude by saying that South Africa’s agriculture is basically sound. We have a new Deputy Minister of Agriculture who is full of enthusiasm and we expect great things of him. There is also a new Secretary to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, Dr. Immelman. We are glad to see their faces here. And with a Minister such as ours, we farmers believe we shall eventually solve our problems.

Mr. Chairman, I request your attention and that of hon. members for my remarks, in which I shall deviate a little from the norm by pointing out on a very practical level only one of the problems with which our farmers have to contend every day. This is one of the problems which contribute to the difficult situation in which agriculture finds itself today. I could cover this bench of mine with similar examples of the way commerce and industry sometimes tend to exploit the farmers in the prices of spare parts which the farmers are forced to buy from them. However, I have brought only one with me. I shall try to show and analyse it to hon. members.

This spare part of an engine is of course made of pure steel. Here on my bench I have the Government Gazette of 15 September 1978, containing the various steel prices. In this Government Gazette, I find that the price for the very best type of steel is R393,75 per 1 000 kg. The Government Gazette describes this as prime material steel. I have weighed this spare part and it weighs 1½ kg. If one makes some further calculations, one finds that if 1 000 kg of steel cost R393,75, then 1 kg of steel costs about 40 cents. This spare part weighs 1½ kg. To facilitate calculation, let us say it weighs 2 kg. Then the steel of which this article is manufactured costs 80 cents. One end of the article is painted, and I am very generous towards the paint dealers, allowing them 20 cents for this bit of paint. Then the material of which this article is made costs exactly R1.

The next important task is to ascertain what the production cost of the article is, in other words, the labour involved. This is rather difficult to determine. If these articles are machine-made on a mass basis, I suppose that 100 of them can be turned out every hour. However, if a craftsman has to manufacture it by hand, I feel that he will be able to make about five articles per hour, because its structure seems to be quite simple. If such an artisan earns the very good salary of R5 an hour, and he can make five such articles an hour, then the cost of the material and the labour involved is R2. From the factory, the article goes to the wholesale dealer. I shall be equally generous towards the factory and allow them a profit margin of 100%. If so, then the factory sells this article to the wholesaler at R4. The wholesaler sells the article to the retailer, and if the wholesaler is also allowed a profit of 100%, then the article costs the retailer R8. To the retailer, too, I allow a profit of 100% when he sells the article to the farmer. Such an article ought to cost the farmer R16.

Let us argue, however, that I have made a serious mistake somewhere in my calculation. I even want to go so far as to question the prices as published in the Government Gazette. One cannot do this, of course, but to be absolutely safe, I shall nevertheless do so. If I suppose that the prices published in the Government Gazette are only half-way accurate, this means that the material of which the article was made costs R2. This doubles my previous cost calculation. Furthermore, we may suppose that the artisan has told the industrialist that he is no longer prepared to work for R5 an hour and that he now wants to work for R10 an hour. This would mean that the labour involved in making this article would also cost R2. Therefore the factory would be manufacturing the article at R4. At a profit of 100% for the factory, the wholesaler would be buying the article for R8. The wholesaler would make his 100% profit in his turn and sell it to the retailer for R16. If the retailer also makes 100% profit, the farmer would get the article at a price of R32.

I have here the invoice which was made out when the article was bought. I have tied the invoice to the article so that it cannot be lost. The farmer bought this spare part from a dealer on 22 February this year at a price of R193. Here is the invoice, but unfortunately I cannot identify the farmer or the business concern.

That is a pity.

It is a pity, but the farmers know that if they have these people prosecuted—they often have a sole agency—they are discriminated against in a subtle way, so that such a farmer no longer gets any service from that firm. After all, the farmer’s tractors have to be kept running so that his farming activities may continue. Therefore the farmers are reluctant to lodge complaints in this connection.

I know that this matter does not lie so much in the field of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture as in that of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture need not react to it either, but I thought I should tell the House about it to show what enormous problems our farmers have to contend with. I think it is absolutely disgraceful. If one takes account of the fact that a farmer cares for his young cattle for two years, raises them and feeds them, and then, when he sells two young oxen, receives the same amount for them as the cost of this little piece of metal, it shows how disgraceful it is.

One cannot even eat it.

A farmer who raises sheep has to sell six full-grown sheep before he has earned this amount. The maize farmer has to sell 19 bags of maize before his income is equal to the cost of this spare part. I think it is absolutely disgraceful that a part of our national economy, i.e. certain dealers, are deliberately exploiting the farmers, the people who practise this noble profession, these people who work day after day to feed and clothe the people of South Africa Moreover, the farmer of South Africa will be faced with a greater task in the future. Tomorrow and the day after, when Africa becomes hungry, the farmer of the Republic of South Africa will also extend a helping hand to African States. I therefore trust that ways and means will be found of preventing this kind of malpractice.

Mr. Chairman, I think we are fortunate in South Africa, very fortunate indeed, in having succeeded up to now in keeping agricultural matters out of everyday party politics. I believe it would be an evil day for agriculture in South Africa if this industry were ever turned into a party-political football. Some of us, people who are involved in organized agriculture, do have some experience. We have seen what happened in other countries of the world, countries with a situation comparable to ours, after everyday party-politics had been dragged into agriculture. No one paid a higher price for that kind of practice than agriculture itself. That is why it would be an evil day in South Africa if party politics and agriculture were allowed to interfere with each other. We are fortunate in South Africa in having one of the best organized farming communities in the world. Apart from our representations here, we have, in our organized agriculture, the best possible champion of the farmer of South Africa.

I want to refer briefly to a particular problem in my part of the country. I am referring to that important area, the South-East Transvaal Lowveld area. Where a problem situation has arisen in agriculture all over South Africa, that area is no exception. What makes that area especially important—not only to agriculture, but to South Africa as a whole—is its strategic situation. I am now referring to the Onderberg Lowveld, east of Nelspruit, bordering on Swaziland and extending to the Mozambique border. If the depopulation of the rural areas is a problem for all of South Africa, we have the additional problem in that very strategic region that a drop in the number of farmers there because of the depopulation of the rural areas also creates a security risk for South Africa. Now that particular area, which used to be—but unfortunately no longer is—the main vegetable-producing area of South Africa, has to contend with special economic problems. I just want to refer briefly to one or two of these.

Because our land there is situated along the border of a foreign country, Mozambique—where control measures have largely collapsed—we have to contend with the problem of foot and mouth disease from day to day. Furthermore, we are faced with the problem that we are separated from our markets by up to 2 000 km. Then there is also the problem of high rail tariffs. This is an intensive irrigation area. Now I deliberately say that we also have to contend with the problem of excessive Escom tariffs, which our farmers there cannot afford. We also have a further problem. Because many of the farmers there, in fact, the majority of them, are vegetable farmers, they are faced with the additional problem of unstable and fluctuating prices in the marketing of their products. Recently, the farmers in that particular region have also been having tremendous financing problems.

Certain financial institutions are already trying to get rid of these farmers. Because the farmers are operating in a border area, an area which is vulnerable and which is not so popular at the moment among people who are looking for land, financial institutions now argue that the security they have for the facilities they have made available is no longer what it was. Therefore they are bringing enormous pressure to bear on those farmers.

Only in the small area around Komatipoort, on the Mozambique border, an area in which 60 farmers are operating, there are 20 sugar farmers who are fairly prosperous. The other 40 are mainly dependent on cotton and other cash crops, chiefly vegetables. Thirty-three of those farmers owe R1,3 million to the local co-operative alone. That is apart from all the other debts they have. Now we are grateful for the fact that the State, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the Government are very well aware of that problem and that a serious attempt is being made at the moment to find a short-term and a long-term solution. However, I am afraid, and I want to say so this morning, that if the assistance and the measures which the State is considering are put off any longer, it will be too late for many of those farmers, because certain financial institutions are already trying to get rid of them. I emphasize that in the interests of the security of South Africa, we must not allow any further depopulation of that particular area, with its very strategic situation. If we allow that, we shall eventually have to repopulate that area at vast expense, much more than it would require at the moment to keep the farmers who are there at the moment on their farms.

Mr. Chairman, the three hon. members on that side of the House who have spoken before me have all made very positive contributions to this debate. I shall not react to them individually, with the exception perhaps of the hon. member for Meyerton with his spare part. I was not able to establish exactly what it was, but I think he made a reasonably good point. His reasoning was perhaps not quite as sound as it might have been. He did not mention the manufacturing costs or Escom charges, which could be a very large part of the cost of that particular implement or spare part in terms of the machinery that is used to produce it, because if the hon. member lived in my part of the country, he would know what it is to pay very heavy electricity charges. Of course, it also brings to mind the position of the farmer and electricity, a question which was mentioned by the hon. member for Barberton. One really wonders what goes on when we are crying out for petrol products in this country and find a situation that where a farmer wants to get Escom onto his land, he has to pay such enormous extension charges that he is just unable to afford it. Consequently diesoline is being used in enormous quantities, while this country could well use diesoline for other purposes. Electricity could be used by the farmer instead. I think that if we could embark on some type of electrification programme for the country it would be of great benefit for the whole of South Africa.

But actually these are not the subjects which I wish to discuss in this debate. The subject I do wish to debate goes under the heading of the cholesterol myth. I do not claim any responsibility for any personal detail of this. I have taken these facts entirely from a paper prepared for the Eastern Agricultural Union by Mr. D. Preston from the Cathcart district, who is a prominent dairy farmer and a Friesland breeder. He has brought certain facts to light which, I believe, should be publicized throughout South Africa. That is the reason why I am using the opportunity of this debate to try to do so. I have never appealed to the Press before in this House, but I would like to appeal to them today please to publish some of the information which I will make available to this House today regarding this cholesterol myth. Time and time again we have seen television advertisements and newspaper advertisements which knock the dairy and meat industries, claiming that if a wife wants to do her husband a favour and keep him living in the long term, she must feed him with margarine. The implication is that butter, or animal fat, is dangerous. There is absolutely no justification for this at all, and I wish to try to demonstrate this in the few minutes that I have in this debate.

This all arose because a number of years ago the American Heart Association produced a report on heart disease in modern America, a report which, on insufficient evidence, condemned animal fat as the prime cause of the disease. Subsequently, numerous researchers the world over have disproved this diet-heart theory, but the damage had been done. Hence a whole picture was built up blaming dairy products and animal fats for the increase in coronary heart disease. Even the Departments of Health and Agriculture in this country permitted margarine, the most common of vegetable fats, to masquerade as butter, imitating it in colour, flavour and consistency. They allow people to ride on butter’s back to sell their product and to make it more acceptable to the consumer. At the same time they turn around and in their advertising they knock the animal fat products and they imply that they are dangerous to the consumer, which is absolute nonsense.

In 1969 a Mr. Ahrens wrote a diet-heart hypothesis in the United States and subsequently restated it in U.S. Congressional Testimony. He said—

It is further said by Dr. Ray Lawson of Toronto that—

He cited the Eskimos, who have never had heart disease although they live exclusively on their native diet, which was nothing but animal fats. Further, in 1977, Sir John McMichael, who is emeritus professor of medicine at the University of London said, and I want to quote him quite extensively because it is important—

Here he is referring to the Department of Health in Britain—

Now, quite apart from these various workers in this field, trials of cholesterol-producing diets were carried out as long as ten years ago and were meticulously controlled. One such trial involved coronary patients at risk and showed that substitution of poly-unsaturated fats for ordinary fats in the diets of nearly 400 patients observed over six years was without influence on occurrences or ultimate death rate. Similarly, in the United States trials were conducted of a cholesterol-lowering drug regime on 8 141 patients over six years, and the mortality was absolutely identical in the treated and the untreated.

One can quote Prof. Dedichen of Oslo, who says that there are no grounds for changing the nature of the fats we eat. He says that there will be no gain in health and the consequences could be harmful. An article by Dr. Johnstone: “Low cholesterol diet… it won’t prevent heart attacks.” There was the Framingham Diet Study which covered a period of more than 20 years and involved 5 000 people in Boston, Massachusetts. They came to the conclusion that no association between the percentage of calories from fat and the blood cholesterol level was shown, nor any in regard to plant fat intake, etc. There was a further study in the States which came to exactly the same conclusions. I am paraphrasing this information to a large extent because my time is running out. New Zealand, the nation with the highest butter-fat intake in the civilized world has a low death rate from heart disease, yet in this country we constantly get advertisements for non-dairy creamers and margarine stating that they contain polyunsaturated fats. The implication is clear, in every single case, that dairy products are harmful. That is, of course, totally untrue, and I think action should be taken against these people by the hon. the Minister of Health—I am very glad to see he is here—and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture.

There was an advertisement in the Sunday Times recently. The caption read: “This woman could be a danger to her family.” Below that was the invitation—

The main solution provided in that booklet is to cut down on the intake of dairy and animal fats and increase the margarine intake. This is absolutely scandalous. The dairy farmers in this country today are in an extremely poor situation, and they will continue to be in a poor situation even if there were not the droughts there have been, for example in the western Cape and in other areas. Even in the good years the dairy farmer is not producing sufficient income for himself to be able to keep up his standards, improve his farm or make any worthwhile profit whatsoever. One of the reasons is, of course, the non-dairy creamers. The non-dairy creamers, it is estimated, are responsible for losses in fresh milk sales of 600 000 litres per day. This is because of the dairy creamers, those very creamers the hon. the Minister of Transport allows to be sold on his aircraft. Those very non-dairy creamers could, in fact, be dangerous. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am truly grateful that the hon. member for East London North has raised this matter here this morning. We do not differ with him at all. On the contrary. We are in full agreement with him. This is a matter that has been vexing us for a long time and I just want to tell him that we have already given attention to this problem. We have already consulted the hon. the Minister about this. We are also having further interviews with him on this matter. I fully agree with the hon. member that it is not necessary for non-dairy products to be advertised to the detriment of dairy products. We have sufficient proof of that. Recently a certain Dr. Du Plessis at the Tygerberg Hospital also expressed his opinion on this matter. I wish to state that the hon. the Minister of Health discussed this subject during the agricultural congress at Bloemfontein and also expressed an unfavourable opinion on this trend. I am convinced that this matter will be rectified in the near future. However, I do not wish to say anything further about it.

I now wish to join with other hon. members who have expressed their thanks to the hon. the Minister and through him, to the Government, for the assistance being given to our farmers on the basis of the findings of the Jacobs Committee. Those findings relate in particular to certain drought-stricken areas and I am truly grateful for the fact that the aid is now being extended to the Free State and the Transvaal where we are also experiencing a very serious drought at the moment.

I have something on my mind which really worries me, a matter I wish to raise in the few minutes at my disposal. In my constituency the rainfall has been above normal during the four years ending 1978 and the harvests have also been exceptionally good. In spite of these excellent harvests, the district farmers’ union of one of the co-operatives in my area that covers the area Senekal-Marquard has ordered an investigation because they have found that in respect of the financial problems of the farmer, there has been a decline instead of progress. This investigation was undertaken by the extension officer of the department in co-operation with the extension officer of the co-operative. I wish to state that any possible suggestion of ineffective or unproductive farmers can immediately be left out of the reckoning because in my view there are no longer any such farmers on our farms. They left our farms a long time ago. Besides, brief courses are continually being offered to our farmers by the extension section of the department. You must please excuse me, Sir, if I put in a good word for these men who are doing excellent work. When I was at home during the recess, I received an invitation which I should just like to deal with to give an indication of what these men are doing in the interests of the farming community. I quote—

I think these men deserve the heart-felt gratitude of the House for the excellent work they are doing in the interests of our farming community.

As a result of the good years we have had and as a result of this excellent extension work, the average tonnage in grain production for the period 1975-’78 was 230% higher than that for the period 1959-’64. Production increased by 43% or on an average, 13% per annum between 1976 and the end of 1978 alone. That is for that particular area. In spite of the increased productivity, the position of the farmer has deteriorated. This is a matter of great concern to me. As a result of that, more and more farmers were dependent upon borrowed funds to supplement the working capital in their farming operations. The profit margin was simply not large enough to cover the rising costs of means of production. Between 1976 and 1978, the monetary value of production again increased by 87% while the production debts with the co-operatives alone, increased by 84%. The bumper year which the farmers experienced should really have enabled them to pay off their debts, but in reality that did not happen.

I am pointing out these things because I am convinced that the Jacobs Commission has a great task. We have already been advised of the findings of the commission relating to short-term assistance to drought-stricken areas. We are truly grateful for that. However, the commission also has the task of finding a long-term solution to the problems of the farmer. In view of the fact that there was a decline in the revenue of the farmers even while things were going well with them, we might encounter the position that farmers who should really stay on the farms, will leave them. I am therefore truly grateful that this investigation is being undertaken.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River is not here at the moment, but I wish to state in the first place that basically I agree with what he has said.

Initially, when I decided to participate in this debate, I thought we should have a few altercations, but it seems to me that there is such a great deal of unanimity that you, Mr. Chairman, would probably prefer me not to disturb the peace. I also want to tell the hon. member for East London North that I am in full agreement with him.

There are many agricultural areas in South Africa in which certain things have happened as a result of certain standpoints that were adopted in regard to certain agricultural products. Those things have had a tremendous effect on the agricultural economy of those areas. However, I also have to point out that this side of the House has, on numerous occasions, directed attention to these problems. I want to tell the hon. member for Wynberg that I have no objection to retired farmers on that side of the House—one of these days the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South will also count among the retired farmers—wanting to do something for agriculture. We are very grateful for that.

[Inaudible.]

The only thing is the hon. member does not know yet how close he is to retirement. On this side of the House we have many practical farmers. I do not want to summarize the financial bottlenecks in the agricultural industry, but I do want to state—and in this I wish to endorse what the hon. member for Mooi River has stated—that at this stage we have entered an unusual period as far as agriculture is concerned. We have almost reached a crisis point as far as agriculture is concerned. In the past, we launched certain campaigns in South Africa in respect of certain industries that were experiencing crises.

Now I believe that the ultimate solution to the problem of agriculture in South Africa apparently lies in increasing the income of all people in South Africa to such an extent that those people will be able to buy the agricultural products of this country at a price that will make it worthwhile for the producer to produce those products. The Government has taken steps to reduce the wage gap between certain population groups. We must not despair when we consider the situation of agriculture today. We should set ourselves the task today to give the agricultural industry the boost which it needs to bridge the period we are now facing, and until such time as the economy of the country and also the economic position of the inhabitants of the country have improved sufficiently for them to be able to pay the farmer for the product he produces. I do not wish to derogate from references to the increase in production costs, etc., because they are facts.

I merely want to repeat what I have already stated on a previous occasion. When certain gold mines in South Africa found themselves in a cost spiral which made their production unprofitable, we were prepared to pump vast sums of money into that industry to confirm our confidence in it. Today we are reaping the good fruits of the confidence we placed in that industry. In my view, the solution to the agricultural problem does not lie in further production loans, because interest has to be paid on them in any case. We should launch an infusion campaign, a supportive campaign, to enable agriculture to overcome this problem.

I wish to touch on a second matter. I want to ask why it is not possible for us in the South African set-up—certain hon. members have referred to the depopulation of the rural areas and to certain problems being experienced in certain areas—to realize that there are certain parts of South Africa in which agriculture is being practised, in the same way in which any industry or any factory is run. We talk about border industry areas, and similarly there should also be agricultural border areas. We should see to it that the farmers operating in those agricultural border areas obtain certain benefits.

The hon. member for Mooi River has discussed what the State can do, of customs and excise, and all that kind of thing. The last time we undertook a study of this aspect was in 1969 and we found that agricultural land in the Transvaal, for example—and we are talking of high land prices—had, since 1910, already been encumbered to the tune of more than R200 per morgen as a result of transfer duties. We have to work out a programme whereby we can effect relief. The people within a specified distance of certain independent Black States and other non-independent Black States, should be able to obtain border industry benefits, because agriculture is an industry just like an ordinary industry on the manufacturing industry.

If this is the case, we must be consistent and go even further. We should also consider accommodation on our farms. I want to talk about Black housing on our farms in particular. As far as housing in Black townships is concerned, great progress has been made in making money available through building societies, etc. for the Black people to buy their own homes, etc. The agriculturalists of South Africa, 70 000 farmers, accommodate one-third of the economically active Black people in South Africa on our farms. We saw what a little encouragement could do when, a few years ago, we introduced the scheme enabling people to borrow money at reasonably low rates of interest to build houses on farms. I am referring to the rural areas of the Transvaal; I do not know the other areas so well. Hon. members can travel through the rural areas of the Transvaal today and compare the housing with what it was five, six or 10 years ago. A phenomenal improvement has set in. I therefore want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister again. Where, in the past, the allocation was 10 units per farm which was subsequently reduced to four per farm but apparently increased to six a few weeks ago, we should again make it 10 units per farm. We should again make this financing readily available to the agricultural industry so that the farmers are able to house the Black people on their farms. We shall benefit from that. The result will be that we shall not have the great influx to the Black metropolitan areas if there is proper housing for these people on the farms.

Mr. Chairman, my Whip is allowing me only five minutes. I wish to say something about game farming. I wish to state the factual situation briefly. In South Africa there are more than 300 000 ha of private game reserves outside the Kruger National Park. There are approximately 400 farms where people farm exclusively with game. Then there are more than 3 000 farms where game is utilized on a relatively commercial basis. Frozen venison exports from South Africa and South West Africa amount to almost 2 000 tons. According to figures furnished by Customs and Excise in 1977, the value of frozen beef exports was R51 million; of sheep and goats, R1 million; of pigs, R5 million; and of venison, R4 million. We see therefore that the value of venison exports represents approximately 8% of the value of beef exports and is four times as high as the value of frozen mutton and goat’s meat exports. In addition, one has to take into account that this is a prime product and that it has a very low cholesterol content. Tests have been carried out here and there and it has been proved that game farming can indeed be profitable. It is true that problems exist with regard to the combating of certain diseases. The hon. the Minister will probably quote a disease like measles in this regard, but in my view all the carcass can be inspected after slaughtering. The fact is that the farmers who farm with game have developed an outstanding technique with regard to this type of farming.

I want to add that during my career as extension officer I visited thousands of farms in this country. There are few farms in Natal which I do not know. If one sees some game on one of the farms, one knows that they belong to a capable farmer who is very fond of his farm, even though there may be only a few guinea fowls or a tame antelope or two on his farm.

According to a certain survey it was found that one of the major impediments to faster progress of game farming was the great deal of red tape the farmers had to go through, not only because game was not regarded as farm animals, but also because there were a great many procedures for obtaining the permission of the Natal Parks board and, in the other provinces, that of the nature conservation authorities before game could be moved from one place to another. My argument is therefore that these impediments should be removed and that game should be regarded as ordinary farm animals. In other words, the game should merely be subject to the normal procedure applicable to farm animals when diseases break out. The Veterinary Services Division should then issue the necessary permits.

The game I am referring to includes springbuck, blesbuck, eland, kudus, impala, blue wildebeest, zebras, nyala, and wart-hogs. Today there is no longer any danger of these animals becoming extinct and I can therefore see no reason why this impediment should not be removed. There is already enough red tape for farmers today, and I believe this is one procedure that can profitably be done away with.

I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the Landbouweekblad of 12 March 1974. Under the heading “Komitee gestig—wildboerdery word ondersoek” it was stated—

I just want to point out that the committee was appointed five years ago and that I understand that they have not yet submitted their report. If they wait another two years, they will almost, like Jacob, get Leah and if they keep at it for another seven years after that, they might perhaps get Rachel too.

In the last minute at my disposal, I wish to refer to yet another aspect of our game life. I always used to be a keen visitor to the Kruger National Park and I can remember how 30 years ago one used to see herds of 300 to 500 blue wildebeest or zebras there. When one goes there now one sees other game, too, but those large herds are scarce. One sees a great deal of grass rotting away. When one is in the south of the game park, everybody says the herds are in the north, but when one is in the north they say the herds are in the south. The Kruger National Park has capable officials who say: “We don’t talk about ships and shipping”. I have heard many visitors from overseas complain, particularly after they have paid a visit to the Etosha Game Reserve, that they no longer see those large herds of game. The grass is burned there in season and out, although nature requires that one should bum during the summer and spring, and not during winter and autumn. I feel that there is too much culling of game and that this is the reason why one no longer sees such large herds.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast spoke about a subject that is very dear to my heart. In the last minute of his speech he referred to the absence of the large herds of grazers such as wildebeest, zebra, roan antelope and sable that one used to see in years gone by. The hon. the Minister knows that I have fairly strong views on this, and I hope to get the opportunity a little later in this year to take the hon. the Minister along to show him a practical demonstration of ecological theories that are being carried through, theories that might be the salvation of these larger size grazers. I am grateful to the hon. member for South Coast for raising this matter, because I think it one of considerable concern.

I also agree with his views on the subject of game farming, because I believe that game farming should be encouraged in South Africa I must say that he made a very good speech indeed.

There have been several very, very good speeches, very interesting speeches in this debate so far. There was, for example, the speech by the hon. member for East London North on dairy products. He and I both attended a seminar of the Dairy Farmers’ Association earlier this year, where this point of view was put forward. There is a considerable amount of truth in everything he has said. I think the dairy industry has not had a fair share in terms of publicity, and I really believe it is now the responsibility of the hon. the Minister and his department to try to do something about it. Specifically as far as non-dairy creamers are concerned, we have a disgraceful situation in which a product that is derived from palm oil, which is a saturated fat—this is a non-dairy creamer—is regarded as being more healthy than milk. The astounding statistic of 600 000 litres of milk per day, I believe, must have horrified the hon. the Minister as well.

This was a very interesting debate. We have had some most interesting contributions by speakers like the hon. member for Bethal, the hon. member for Barberton and the hon. member for Meyerton, who made a speech about the cost of various articles. The contributions we have had here today, I think, all pointed to a very real concern about the situation in agriculture today, a concern shared by many members of the farming community in South Africa.

If I may describe the situation at the moment, I want to do it in terms of an old Dutch fairy-tale. I am not even sure whether it was a fairy tale or whether it was in fact true. It is the story about the little boy who found a hole in a dyke and had to put his thumb into the hole in order to stop the water from flowing through. In that manner he saved the whole surrounding area from being flooded, because he bravely stood with his finger in that hole until help arrived. There is a similar situation in agriculture today. The hon. the Minister can be likened to that little boy. The dyke is the agricultural industry at the moment. There is not only one hole, but various holes. We have reached the situation now in which the hon. the Minister is putting a finger everywhere. He has used up all his fingers.

He should start with his toes.

He puts, for example, one finger into the hole to keep the mealie farmers quiet. He does that by raising the mealie price, a justifiable increase in the light of the increased costs. He puts one finger in there. Meanwhile, other farmers have other problems, and the hon. the Minister has to put fingers in holes all over the place. Then he calls in the assistance of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, who has to use up all his fingers and all his toes. The net result is that more and more water is seeping through all the time. There is now the very real danger that this dyke might finally collapse.

I think, and I am not blaming the Government at this stage, that the point made by the hon. member for Wynberg is a most important one. I think that during the two days of this agricultural debate this year, a responsibility rests on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister to talk about what he is going to do in terms of the broad policy in respect of the agricultural industry. I believe we are in a situation in which it is now proven that what is being done is not enough. One looks at the efficiency of the departments concerned—I believe they are very efficient; they do a fine job for the farmers—and still one finds that farmers find themselves in a deteriorating situation. Their situation is getting worse. They owe more money. I think I have said before that farmers are proud people, people who do not want subsidies or anything like that. They want to be able to stand on their own feet. They want to be part of an industry where they can stand as individuals, sell their products at a fair price, make a fair profit, receive a fair return on their investments, but they cannot do it today.

Unfortunately we tend to generalize too much about things. I take the example raised by the hon. member for Wynberg of the depopulation of various agricultural areas, specifically in relation to farming entities that are not actually economic—the middle-sized farmer and small farmer. They are getting to a stage in the industry in which many of them are forced to go out of business, because it is just not worth the candle any longer.

It is all very well to say that this is really going to be the pattern of agriculture in the future and that we have to get more economic units. What happens to the middle-sized farmer and the small farmer in the meantime? He goes progressively through a period of more and more debt He has mental trauma because he does not know what to do with his debts. In a final analysis and after the years of struggling, he goes bust and has to leave the land. This is not the way we should be going about things. If we decide that uneconomic farming units have got to go out of business, I believe it is up to hon. members in this House, to the Government, to come to some sort of conclusion about how this is to be done. They must not wait until the farmer slowly fades into bankruptcy, but must inform him that his unit is uneconomic and on that basis put certain suggestions to him. This really is the point of the request we are making to the hon. the Minister, because we think a tremendous responsibility rests on him to say what is going to happen. He might temporarily have plugged the hole in the dyke as far as the mealie farmers are concerned, although they still have certain legitimate complaints, one of them being the price of fertilizer. This is something that I hope to come back to later during the debate. However, I think it has been adequately pointed out during the course of this debate by the hon. member for Wynberg that there are thousands of farmers who are not mealie farmers who are going to suffer as a result of this. Their particular leak in the dyke is going to get much larger and I do not think the hon. the Minister will be able to stop it, however many fingers and toes he may have. One looks at the situation of the cattle farmer and the sheep farmer as far as meat is concerned, and the dairy farmer, and realizes that they just cannot carry on as they are going on at the moment now being faced with a tremendous increase in the mealie price. As the hon. the Minister knows, the greatest users of maize products are the farmers themselves. They cannot carry on like this. They can obviously raise their prices to a certain extent, but we have seen the pattern of what happens when this sort of action is taken in the case of other products. One raises one’s prices quite legitimately in terms of one’s cost structure to the stage where one starts getting consumer resistance, because the consumer can no longer pay the price. Therefore one has a fall in demand and less money comes in. This has virtually meant the destruction of large sections of the dairy industry and the meat industry, because farmers have just given up as it is not worth the candle. Farmers with land that is not ideally suited to mealie farming have changed to mealie farming because they have on that basis at least some certainty that the Government will protect them as far as prices are concerned.

Are you insinuating that other farmers are not protected?

I am insinuating exactly that. The hon. member for South Coast has put his finger right on it. Other farmers are not protected. However, I do not blame the hon. the Minister entirely for this. I do not quite know what he is going to do. Unless he comes forward with major policy decisions which are going to be aimed at saving the farming industry and getting the farming industry out of debt, I do not really know what he is going to do. Interesting to me was the speech of the hon. member for Meyerton, who produced a spare part here and did a cost breakdown on what he imagined it should have cost. He expressed alarm and despondency in telling us what the eventual price was. I can perhaps equate that story with the dairy industry. A consumer from a town goes to visit his farmer friend who is a dairy farmer. He asks him why he has to pay so much for his milk these days. The dairy farmer, depending on what part of the country he comes from, says that he is only getting 17c, or maybe 18c if he is lucky, per litre for his product at the moment. The average price is 12c when one comes down to industrial milk. The consumer inquires how this can be. He says that he can remember the day before he left into town going to his local café to get a litre of milk and it cost him approximately 35c. Again it depends on what part of the country he is in. In parts of the country it costs 40c per litre. [Time expired.]

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Barberton I also want to discuss the farmers in the areas adjoining our Black States and our neighbouring States. I want to single out a few aspects in this regard. Great concern has been expressed at the depopulation of these areas, not only the depopulation of the rural areas in general, but particularly the depopulation of the smaller areas to which I am referring. This concern is justifiable and for that reason I believe we are all very glad that the hon. the Minister appointed a committee, under the capable leadership of Mr. Steyn, to investigate this matter. We hope the findings of the committee and the resultant measures to be taken, will soon be made known by the hon. the Minister.

I want to speak about the farmers who are still living in these areas, however. I want to refer to their particular circumstances so that, on the basis thereof, we can see what we have to do there in future to put a stop to this depopulation. First of all I want to say that the farmers still living in these areas are really the salt of the earth. There is no doubt that they fear no terrorist. Virtually all these farmers are members of commandos. Their women and children know how to handle a gun. They know how to handle a crisis, because they have had to do it in the past. So there should be profound gratitude on the part of the whole of South Africa for these farmers who serve as a buffer and at the same time also act as a link with other peoples. I want to point out that these farmers, who do not allow themselves to be deterred by terrorists, are going through more difficult financial straits than the average farmers in other areas. Usually they are far from the markets and consequently their marketing costs are higher. For the same reason the costs of their production means are usually higher too. The services which they require in the far off regions, for example the services of mechanics, are much more expensive because of the distance and the fact that there are fewer mechanics in those areas than in the case of farmers who live near big towns.

Today, however, I want to refer in particular to other circumstances which will of necessity influence farmers in the remote areas and which definitely play a role in their decision to stay there or not. A factor with which almost all of those farmers have to live with from day to day is that of game theft, stock theft or theft of their products. In most of these cases, the police are doing excellent work and in most of these cases the police succeed in bringing the guilty person to book. The task of the police is very difficult, however. The terrain is usually mountainous, covered with thick undergrowth and close to the national borders. Consequently the police can only succeed if they are very capable and experienced and dedicated to their task. The farmer himself does not merely sit with his arms folded and ask for police protection. On the contrary—and this is one of the other factors we should point out—the farmers in those areas contact the chiefs and indunas and have talks with them on a regular basis in connection with problems like stock theft. Nor is it a one-sided conversation only. The question of higher salaries for the Black workers is also being discussed. In that way those farmers are not merely establishing a military buffer zone there. They also serve to provide a good liaison that gives rise to beneficial discussions between the various population groups. Naturally those areas are sensitive because the territories of the various population groups meet there. In such a sensitive area, therefore, it is essential for law and order to be particularly effectively maintained there. It is equally essential for the administration of justice to be efficient. For that reason it is all the more essential for the services rendered by the State there, for example those rendered by means of the police, the Supreme Courts with their officials, the extension officers providing agricultural technical services, Government veterinary surgeons and the officials of the Department of Plural Relations and Development, to be of the highest quality. That is essential.

We know, however, that in practice those remote areas do not attract the ordinary public servant. And under the present circumstances we cannot blame him. Housing is usually not good, or is completely non-existent. One has to fend for oneself. Schools are few and far between. Doctors and hospitals are also miles away and the recreational facilities in the area cannot be compared with those in the urban areas. We can learn a lesson from this. The financial aid which the hon. the Minister and the Government are possibly going to make available to those areas, will not in itself be adequate to attract new farmers and other people to or to stop the depopulation of those areas. More is required because it is extremely necessary for the farmer who remains in that area to be able to trust the public servant around him, for example the policeman, the magistrate, etc. Therefore, I believe it would pay the hon. the Minister, or possibly the committee, to involve the Government departments which I mentioned and others as well, so as to ensure that only the best officials will be stationed in those areas. We know the extension officers in those thinly populated areas are few and far between, but those areas are particularly in need of high productivity. They are the very people who should be assisted. It is only natural for the capable extension officer, if he has a choice, to prefer to live in a more sophisticated area rather than in a sparsely populated area where facilities are lacking. For that reason I believe the various departments would do well to see whether they could not offer greater benefits in order to attract the best officials to those areas.

Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege for me to associate myself with the hon. member for Eshowe in putting the case of the border farmers. I should also like to mention a few ideas for the consideration of this House with regard to the farmers farming in the border areas of our country. I am thinking particularly of the farmers in the north-western and northern border areas, the farmers farming in the area adjoining Botswana and Rhodesia. If I have to identify that area, I shall say that it is an area varying in width from 80 km to 50 km and 30 km situated adjacent and parallel to those borders. It is in fact not only the farmer living alongside the border who should be classified as a border farmer.

When I say that the particular area is an emergency area, I do not wish members to be under the wrong impression as to what is meant by an “emergency area”. It is not an emergency area due to the infiltration attempts by terrorists who wish to penetrate into the heart-land of the Republic. I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Eshowe by saying that the border farmers do not know that fear. With the help of the Defence Force, the S.A. Police and the commandos, the border farmer is able, as the hon. the Prime Minister put it, to keep the hell out of South Africa’s lounge. I want to say that in the same way as the Rhodesian border farmer has played and is still playing a wonderful role in the border areas of Rhodesia, South Africa may count and rely on the border farmers in the area to which I have just referred.

The emergency of the farmers in that area is an economic one. The problem being experienced by the farmers in that area, is that they are no longer able to carry on a profitable industry. The farmers there are mainly cattle farmers, bona fide cattle breeders, farmers who have to market their cattle from the field. They are not farmers who use feed lots and they are not speculators. While I am pointing out the need of those farmers, it is also necessary for me to tell the hon. the Minister what assistance is required in that area.

However, before dealing with the assistance required by those farmers in the short term and in the long term, I should like to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture for the understanding, sympathy and interest which he shows in that area. The hon. the Minister travelled thousands of kilometres throughout our country to listen to and identify the problems of the farmers. In order to do so, he went from symposium to symposium, from congress to conference. We thank him for that.

Mr. Chairman, it is necessary for us to look at the assistance required by the farmers in that area so as to enable them to farm on a profitable basis once more. In the first place we know that the farmers in that area also have to contend with alarming drought conditions. There are many factors contributing to this and these have already been stated repeatedly in this House today. They have been experiencing periodic droughts over the years. In that area a constant struggle is also being waged against stock diseases. A further problem which is being experienced there, is the tremendously high production and marketing costs. Because farming in that area is mostly with beef cattle, I wish to make the plea that the Meat Board pay special attention to the matter. What the farmers in that area need for the marketing of their cattle are emergency measures and emergency regulations. As I have said, the cattle are marketed from the field. I ask the hon. the Minister, now that we are switching over to the 100% permit system, to intervene on our behalf with the Meat Board in that respect, so that our farmers in that area may be given priority in the issuing of those permits, because we need it We also wish to ask the hon. the Minister to take a look at the burden of debt of the farmers. We are grateful for the announcement which has already been made about the intention to reduce the burden of debt. We also wish to ask the hon. the Minister to take a look at the long term resettlement of White farmers in those areas. We need to come to light with imaginative schemes. The hon. the Minister will probably be able to give us some information in that regard as well. We also wish to ask him to plead with the large financial institutions in the private sector to establish a central settlement fund. Here I have in mind organizations such as Sanlam, Old Mutual, Volkskas, Barclays Bank, Standard Bank and Nedbank—all those large financial institutions. We wish to appeal to those institutions to come forward and to assist the State with schemes to resettle our farmers in those areas. I also wish to ask here that the consumer in South Africa take a much more sympathetic view of the problem being experienced by the farmers in those areas, in particular. We wish to ask the consumer to buy red meat in the chain stores and not chicken. He can also buy red wine to enjoy with the tasty red meat. We ask the consumers’ support and the goodwill of the Press in the interest of the farmers in those areas, the border areas. These are people who have to hold the fort there in the interest of our country. We wish to ask that a message be sent to the farmers in those areas, a message such as the one which was sent to them by Dr. Tomlinson, to tell them to stay on the land, even under circumstances becoming increasingly more difficult, in order to hold the fort for South Africa in the border areas.

Mr. Chairman, it is about time that Vryburg’s voice was heard again in debates in this House. I wish to associate myself with my colleague who has just resumed his seat and congratulate and thank him for what he said about the cattle farmers. I wish to associate myself wholeheartedly with him. I also associate myself with the gratitude he expressed towards Minister Hendrik Schoeman, who recently opened our show at Vryburg. There he could obtain first-hand knowledge of and make the acquaintance of the cattle farmers in the area.

They are good farmers.

Excellent farmers. I briefly wish to sketch a few problems we are experiencing in the meat industry and try to suggest a few solutions myself. The first matter I wish to discuss is the question of quotas and permits. The hon. member for Marico also dealt with this.

Recently I travelled through my constituency. Thanks to the light rain that fell there recently, the cattle were still in beautiful condition. The farmers wish to market their cattle, but they do not get quotas. We do not know whether they will obtain permits on 11 May. As long as it does not rain, the cattle will deteriorate and become weaker and weaker. I visited a farmer who had 120 head of cattle in a feedlot last year, but was only able to market 30. He had to put the others out to graze once again, and they lost weight again. He started feeding them again this year. There are still 90 head of cattle standing there. He told me he is going to have to put them out to graze again. In the districts such as Vryburg, Mafeking, Marico and Kuruman, cattle farming is the basis of the economy. Everything is based on a sound cattle farming economy. Can hon. members imagine the frustration of those people when they have the goods to sell but cannot market it?

A second point I wish to mention is a decided consumer resistance to red meat. In view of the high prices of the past—and I only wish to discuss this in passing—the Housewives’ League launched a boycott campaign against the consumption of red meat. Another spectre was also conjured up, i.e. that red meat supposedly caused cholesterol. We also entered an era of slight depression and therefore the housewives resorted to the cheap protein foods, i.e. chicken and fish. The consumption of these two articles rose astronomically. However, there are encouraging signs, once again, encouraging signs with regard to the marketing of cattle. In 1978, for the first time, for a very long time, there has been an increase in the head of cattle and sheep being slaughtered. I shall just give the figures briefly. In 1977, 1,3 million head of cattle were slaughtered in the controlled areas and 646 OCX) head in the uncontrolled areas, a total of 1,859 million. In 1978, 1,528 million were slaughtered in the controlled areas and 687 000 head in the uncontrolled areas, a total of 2 216 000 in round figures. This is an increase of 356 735 carcasses, an increase of 19,18% over the figure for 1977. We encounter the same trend as regards mutton. There was an increase of 698 884 in carcasses marketed, an increase of 11,71%. This is an encouraging and hopeful sign for the future of the meat industry. Perhaps one can explain this through the high price of poultry today, and even the price of fish has increased. All the cheap proteins of the past have apparently now reached the same price levels as that of red meat. I do not know how it is that the ghost of cholesterol is still walking. There are no doctors today who can determine for us whether it is red meat or fatty meat which causes this. I know of one old man who lived for more than 100 years and who ate only fatty meat, porridge, mealies and bread.

But he worked hard.

He probably also chewed tobacco.

We have other restrictive measures—I shall come to that in a moment—in the marketing and distribution of our meat. There is the unfair competition between red meat and white meat, as has often been pointed out by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. What is the solution for this? Many of our people say that we have to eliminate the middle man. I do not blame the people for saying this. Let us take a carcass which has been sold at the auction for R206,80. The same carcass yields a total revenue of R319,64 over the butchery counter—a difference of R112. It is not only logical that our farmers will ask what has happened to that money? The middle man is the agent, and then there is also the wholesaler and the retail butcher. Hon. members will agree with me that we cannot get rid of the agent. He collects the cattle and gets commission for this. But now we come to the wholesaler. The wholesaler asks 7% on the meat which he supplies to the retailer. He has to build refrigeration plants to store the meat which he buys at the abattoirs, he has to finance the retail butcher and also has to handle the distribution of the meat to all the retail butchers. In this case the retail butcher is probably the culprit. I have with me a diagram of how a carcass is analysed. Anyone can obtain this information by asking for it at a butcher, for it is done there every week. This specific carcass of 188 kg was sold at R1,10 per kilogram, giving a total revenue of R206,80. According to this analysis, the carcass is further divided into primary cuts. The first of these is mincemeat, which constitutes 8,6% of the carcass. The mincemeat weighs 16% of the total weight of the carcass and is sold at Rl,48 per kilogram, which gives a total revenue of R23,93. I can analyse each of these 23 primary cuts in this way. The T-bone constitutes 3% of the weight of the carcass and is sold at R2,56 per kilogram. Rump constitutes 3,7% of the weight and is sold at R3,48 per kilogram. In this way the whole carcass is divided into 23 primary cuts. Finally, there are the cutting losses which constitute 1,6% of the carcass and weigh more than 3 kilograms.

If one adds to the wholesale purchase price of R221 of such a carcass the general sales tax of R12,78 and the packaging cost of R15,89, one gets a total of R250,60. This, then, is the price at which the retail butcher sells such a carcass. His profit is therefore R69,04. This is a gross profit of 21,6%. Hon. members will agree with me that this is low. It is not enough for him to make ends meet, for a butcher must make a gross profit of at least 25%. After all, he has to pay rent, the salaries of his employees and also other administrative costs. Therefore it is calculated that he must be able to make a profit of at least 25%.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member cannot sell his expensive meat any longer. His time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, so far the debate has, to my mind, had a very positive tone. I should like to associate myself with the previous two cattle farmers who spoke…

Another cattle farmer?

It seems as though the whole debate is going to concern the world of the cattle farmer.

This morning the hon. member for Barberton said that we must keep politics out of the agricultural debate and I wholeheartedly agree with him. The hon. the Minister has also said on many occasions that we must keep politics out of the agricultural debate. I accept that hon. members refer to racial politics when they make this request, and in that regard we are at one with them, for we do not wish to drag it into this. What about the problems being experienced by the farmers and the solutions to these problems: Do they constitute politics or not?

No.

Fine. In the light of that I foresee that we shall have a good debate indeed. Therefore the debate will aggravate the Minister’s problems, for now he will be shot at from all sides. Hon. members of the NP, too, are going to get stuck in and put their case. However, I wish to address a request to them that we should please not be critical, but that we should rather give solutions. This is really what we can debate. It is no use simply identifying the problems, for we all realize that agriculture is experiencing many problems. Up to now the contributions have been absolutely positive and I think that the two days remaining for the debate, will be very fruitful if we can continue in this manner.

I intend submitting a whole list of proposals during my turns to speak, and I hope the hon. the Minister will give very thorough consideration to my proposals. He may possibly use these solutions, and I hope his department will give proper consideration to these matters. I hope the next speaker will not simply say that because the proposals were made by a member of the NRP, they are simply rubbish. It simply does not work that way, for we are all farmers and we all wish to find solutions. We have removed politics from the matter and should now like to cooperate.

So why do you make politics of the matter in Swellendam?

No. We do not make politics of it.

†I am not going to allow myself to become involved in a political debate here, because the agricultural situation is much too serious for that. I am not trying to make small political issues, because they do not exist in this respect. The problem of the farmer is of national interest, and we have to look at it very carefully.

I have a whole list of proposals, and I shall deal with them one after the other during my turns to speak. In the first place I want to talk about the export of livestock. I am talking of live livestock, and not of carcasses. I think our country has a tremendous future in this respect. Hon. members will know that exports to Mauritius, Reunion and other African countries have increased during the last few years. I believe that the future of our livestock industry lies in this direction.

We are building an excellent herd of top-class cattle and sheep in this country. We now have to start looking for export markets. I should like to see this department giving the necessary encouragement and assistance in every possible way to the export farmer. I am talking about live cattle and sheep, of course. It is no use merely bringing lip-service. It is no use telling the farmer to go ahead and export livestock. There are many ways in which the department can give assistance. This would improve our local sheep and beef market, and will also improve foreign relations and foreign investments.

I should like to suggest a few thing department should be doing right now the first instance, trade missions should be sent to neighbouring countries, advisory teams to assist the agricultural industry in our neighbouring countries and to help them acquire the superb animals raised in South Africa. With the assistance of the hon. the Minister of Finance they could be offered export loans, export loans for the purpose of buying livestock from South Africa. Only recently, the World Bank offered Botswana a vast loan. They then went and bought scores of cattle directly from the United States.

*We have better cattle in this country than America has. Nevertheless Botswana goes and buys cattle from the USA.

So why do you import your cattle?

Oh, that was a long time ago. I imported them as long ago as 1972. It is now necessary for us to start exporting. We can make these export loans available to people. I am convinced of the fact that such a loan scheme can be of great benefit to us in the future.

†I also believe that we will have to subsidize the shipping costs to those people, the cost of railling their cattle to the various harbours from where they will be transported to markets all over Africa. The most important thing I should like to mention in this respect, is veterinary requirements. Approximately R40 has to be spent by private veterinary surgeons for every animal that is exported. This money is spent on things like injections, the taking of blood samples and other methods of immunizing animals before they are exported. That costs R40 per beast.

*We have veterinary surgeons, Government veterinary surgeons and stock inspectors here in our country, people who would gladly do that work. The amount of R40 which can be saved per animal, can eventually build up a tremendously large market for us. I am sure that people in agriculture, as well as veterinary surgeons and stock inspectors, will be able to do that work very well. The amount which can be saved in this way, can determine whether or not we can send another shipload of cattle to Réunion. I should like the hon. the Minister to give this matter close attention. It is definitely not difficult to rectify this matter. Nor will it cost much. To the farmer, however, it will mean a saving of R40 on each animal. Now, of course, I am not speaking of stud cattle, but of slaughter cattle exported to Reunion, Mauritius, Malawi or elsewhere.

This is the first proposal I wish to make. I believe the Department of Agriculture must concentrate on this type of export to a much larger extent. We must try to create and develop new markets for ourselves overseas as well as in our neighbouring countries. The hon. the Prime Minister said on several occasions that we should build bridges to Africa. I believe this is one way in which we can easily do so.

I should like to chop and change to some extent. I now want to discuss milk.

My second proposal is the following. Hon. members will remember that during the Railways debate I kicked up a fuss about artificial creamers. I should like to know what has been done about this matter. Are we simply going to allow the hon. the Minister of Transport to continue having chemical creamers served with tea and coffee on SAA, on trains and in Railway restaurants? He said there were problems concerning the serving of milk with tea and coffee. However, yesterday I was in the Holiday Inn in Johannesburg. With every cup of tea or coffee they serve a small sealed container of milk. Consequently there is no reason for the Railways to offer people chemical or artificial products.

I request the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to tell the hon. the Minister of Transport: “You must use our farmers’ product.” There is no reason why an hotel in Johannesburg can serve milk with tea or coffee while the Railways resorts to chemical substitutes for milk. I want to elaborate on this. Sugar is served in packets and milk can also be served in packets. Butter is served in packets. However, when the hon. the Minister of Transport allows margarine to be served in those packets, we shall put up a fight.

With regard to my third proposal I wish to return to the marketing of meat The hon. the Minister spoke at length about the fact that we would die from hygiene, and I fully agree with him. However, what do we allow in this country as far as hygiene is concerned? What are the health requirements with which the cattle farmer and the dairy farmer have to comply? The hon. member for South Coast spoke about venison. However, we can look at the difference between the sale of venison and the sale of beef and mutton. The game carcasses are dragged through mud and manure, thrown on the back of a light truck and transported to a butcher. The whole carcass, with the skin, the head, horns, etc., hangs there for a week, but can nevertheless be sold as hygienic meat. Hon. members can imagine what would happen if I were to do the same to a head of cattle of mine: skinning it while hanging from a blue gum tree, cutting its throat, throwing it on the back of a light truck and then taking it to the butcher. What would be the reaction of the hon. the Minister of Health?

We farmers do not do that.

That is what happens in the case of venison. Look at the difference in the slaughtering method. In both cases we are dealing with meat. We must apply hygiene, but there is no need to…

You are living in the past.

No, it is true, the hon. member knows it himself. A guinea fowl or a duck may be shot and sold, but try the same thing in the case of a chicken. What is the difference?

Are you a poultry farmer now?

No, I am referring to all farmers. I am a cattle farmer, but shall also speak on behalf of the poultry farmers. [Interjections.] Unfortunately double standards are being applied everywhere. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, a short while ago I discussed solutions we are trying to find in the cattle industry and I should just like to conclude my remarks.

In the first place I want to suggest that we should encourage greater consumption of meat by the consumer. We must also stimulate the producer in order to make it worthwhile for him to produce meat. We can do this by eliminating existing misconceptions about red meat, by telling the public that it does not cause cholesterol. There is sufficient medical evidence which can substantiate this. We can also bring to the attention of the public the fact that the purchase of red meat is the cheapest way to obtain proteins. We must have this advertised on television. I have in mind three companies that televise meat advertisements on television. Their trademarks are Enterprise, Renown and Spekenam. It is worthwhile to mention these bodies in this House, because they are doing the red meat industry a very great favour and service. However, I want our own board to do this too.

There is also a second point which I should like to make. We must eliminate these restrictive regulations applicable to butcheries, so that we can compete with other protein foodstuffs on an equal basis. In the first place we want to thank the hon. the Minister for having succeeded in arranging that now even cuts of meat may be sold in cafes under hygienic situations under the control of the Meat Board. However, there is still a great deal of red tape which has to disappear, for example that every butchery has to have a blockman. Why can a group of butcheries not have one central distribution point and then send out the meat to the various butcheries, instead of each butchery having to have a blockman? I could mention several additional factors and I think that the hon. the Minister is just as aware of them.

One final point: I understand that prescribed butchery hours have been lifted in the Cape. However, I understand that there are still restrictive hours in other provinces. Some butcheries have to close earlier than ordinary shops.

Finally, I want to say that the future of our meat industry is definitely in the balance. To build up a cattle farming business is a longterm process, but it can be broken down overnight, particularly if one bears in mind that 3 500 cattle, of which 80% were breeding cattle, were recently sold at an auction at Vryburg. When this happens, we must start thinking about the future of our meat industry. If nothing else can be done we shall have to subsidize the prices paid by the consumer. From the day of its inception the cattle industry has never received a subsidy. Admittedly there is a subsidy for drought conditions, but such a subsidy is available to everyone. The marketing of the cattle industry has never received a cent in subsidy. The introduction of more cold-storage facilities for the cattle industry should be carefully considered, so that in times of surplus cattle carcasses may be stored for the lean years which may lie ahead. I know that this will require an enormous sum of money, but it will have to be seriously considered in order to protect the cattle industry in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say at the outset that on Monday I shall discuss matters relating to the new officials in my department as well as an official who is retiring. I have gained a new Deputy Minister, whom I regard as an outstanding person. He is in control of Agricultural Credit and the applications are pouring in. When one is working with a man who is sympathetic towards agriculture and who says, almost every time one sees him, “There is something wrong in agriculture, because the applications for aid are increasing more rapidly than ever before,” then it is a pleasure to know that one has such a man.

However, I do not want to regard the position in the agriculture industry as a crisis. Reference has been made to a crisis which we are supposed to be experiencing in agriculture. It is true that there are problems, which I shall point out briefly. We discuss the problems of the South African farmer in the NP caucus from time to time. The Prime Minister told the caucus that when they speak in Parliament, they should speak their minds. He said it was not necessary to conceal anything. If there is a problem, it must be raised so that it may receive the necessary attention. That is our whole attitude towards agriculture. I am going to refer to certain problems and hon. members may ask what kind of Minister I am that cannot solve these problems. However, the matter is not so easy. I can give hon. members one assurance, though, and that is that I have the sympathy of every member of the Cabinet, especially the sympathy of the hon. the Prime Minister, as far as these problems are concerned.

The Opposition, especially the NRP, says that we should not play politics with agriculture. This has always been my policy and my standpoint. I have already told hon. members that the hon. the leader of the NRP said that the farmers should demonstrate. I do not want to go into this. Now the NRP has a publication called Die Volkstem. A headline in it says “Ramp staar boere in gesig”—in big black letters. The publication says that maladministration is costing agriculture dear. It goes on to say that the maladministration with regard to the Information scandal is the reason why some farmers are having a hard time. I shall not go any further into this matter. I shall discuss it tomorrow night at Ladysmith, and at several other meetings before the by-election. The matter must be rectified, but I do not want to do so in this House. The NRP asks me not to play politics with agriculture, but at the same time, they want to use it to gain a few votes. These tactics will not appeal to the farmers, because we are honest with them and tell them the truth. I said so at the show at Vryburg and at Marico and I shall say it wherever I go. I said it yesterday at the World Conference of Aberdeen Angus Farmers, which was attended by 149 foreign visitors from nine different countries, including 47 Americans. They told me that if this was the problem in South Africa, then it was a greater problem today in America, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, etc. We are honest about these matters. Now I should just like to say that we issued the publication Statistical Economic Review together with the budget. I quote (p. 25)—

But look what happened over a period of 10 years, and this is our difficulty—

However, hon. members say that we are playing off one industry against the other, one farmer against the other, maize farmer against dairy farmer. That is not the case. There are only three products in our country which the Government fully controls by means of a control board and a one-channel system, and they are maize, wheat and dairy products. No other product. Hon. members may take whatever products they like. The price of cotton is determined by world price. The price of wool is also determined by the world price. The price of vegetables depends on supply and demand. We can apply certain measures to render assistance, by introducing a surplus removal scheme for potatoes, for example. We have no control over the other products, and many of the farmers who farm with these other products have found themselves in trouble because of production circumstances in years when there has been a good rainfall.

Let us take meat as an example. The cattle farmers’ floor price has been standing at its present level for the past three years. After the stock withdrawal scheme, we had 27 million sheep and 8,3 million head of cattle. Then we had good rains, good years, and now we have 9,3 million head of cattle and almost 31,5 million sheep. The hon. member for Vryburg is quite right The number of animals slaughtered has increased. He says by 19%, but my figure is 16%. I have always said that the consumption of broilers has doubled over a period of 10 years. The consumption of broilers in our country used to be 5,1 kg per capita. It is now 10,3 kg per capita. Over the same period, the consumption of red meat dropped from 26 kg per capita to 23 kg per capita. Mutton consumption has dropped proportionately. We subsidized the broilers by means of cheap maize—that is the whole story in a nutshell. We try to see these things in perspective and to solve problems, and eventually these things will come right. At the moment, there is an enormous marketing pressure as far as red meat is concerned. The red-bush leaves are falling, the mopani leaves are falling, and the farmers are facing a winter. There are farmers who are saying: “The cow’s calf has just been weaned, but I shall send her to market, thin as she is; I do not want her on the farm, because I do not know what is going to happen this winter.” Surely we cannot eat more than 2,2 million head of cattle this year. Meanwhile, tariff walls of 25% have been introduced by members of the European Economic Community and we cannot export. What is happening now, however? The world price has risen to such an extent that we now have to begin exporting meat without subsidizing it. I am beginning to see rays of hope. One does feel anxious sometimes. I was telling our agricultural group the other day what had happened to ox-hides. The increase in the price of oil had caused a rise in the price of plastic, and the uppers of many shoes are made of plastic. Six weeks ago, ox-hides cost 73c a kilogram. The price is now 178c a kilogram. We have been requested to stop exporting ox-hides, but if we slaughter 2,2 million head of cattle and 6,5 million sheep in a year, we cannot process all those hides here. Surely I cannot tell the cattle farmer that the golden age of agriculture was the time when the money he got for a hide and offal was enough to cover his transport costs and his abattoir slaughtering costs. Now he can get between R30 and R40 for an ox-hide again, and surely I cannot say now that we must stop exporting. If I say this, however, the consumer says that I want to put up the price of shoes by R8 a pair. Then I say: Let us take a look at this industry; let us give this industry a breathing-space. It is not that I want to make shoes more expensive, but that we have an opportunity here to help the industry. I could highlight several of the problems. We must not keep concentrating on a crisis to the exclusion of all else. The wheel does turn to the advantage of the producer sometimes.

Just look how prices have risen. I want to say frankly, as I did at Swellendam and at Malmesbury, that the wheat farmer has contributed 30% to the fight against inflation. He sacrificed R8,90 a ton last year. Let me point out that every price proposal of the Wheat Board goes to the Marketing Board and to the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. I also submit it to the Cabinet. Since I became Minister, the Cabinet has always given me the price recommended by the control board. It is not that the Cabinet and the Government are not sympathetic. However, a backlog has been built up as far as the wheat price is concerned. An additional R20 million has now been made available for subsidizing bread. This is additional to the R50 million referred to in the White Book. Consequently, I believe that the price of bread will not rise this year. However, the Cape wheat farmer can no longer produce wheat at R136 a ton. He will simply have to get a higher price, because of the backlog which has been built up. In discussing prices, however, we do not look only at wheat and maize. Every product stands on its own two feet.

The various sectors of agriculture are so intertwined that a particular price, research and new varieties have a wide influence. In this way, the new wheat variety of “Bella” has been developed as a result of the research done at the Bethlehem experimental farm. Hon. members may ask the hon. member for Bethlehem. Although the Ruens area in the Swartland region of the Cape is traditionally our country’s granary, the Free State produced 52% of our wheat last year. The Free Staters are few in number. That is why they stand so firmly together. If one were to increase the price to compensate the Cape farmer, this could disturb the balance. What would then become of the Free State farmers? However, I am not afraid of the consequences. Last year, we had a record harvest of 2,2 million tons of wheat, while we consume 1,6 million tons. Six years ago, on the other hand, the consumption was 1,1 million tons. Therefore, if we do not increase our wheat production considerably, we shall become a wheat-importing country within the space of six years.

There are people who raised a hue and cry about the fact that the producers’ price for maize had been increased by 25,1% and the consumer price by 22,4%. When we checked that, we saw that if the Government decided not to allow yellow and white maize to be mixed, we might have to import a small amount of white maize next year. At what price could this be off-loaded in Cape Town or Durban—third-grade maize? Sir, the reason why everyone wants South African maize is that it is sun-dried maize. The maize we get from other countries is third-grade maize which has been machine-dried. It is delivered at R157 a ton. Then there is still the transport cost from Durban to Cape Town and to the interior. If we ever became a food-importing country, I should not like to be Minister of Agriculture. Our endeavour must be—and this is the policy of the Government—to be able to feed 50 million people at the beginning of the next century. Whether we are going to manage that, I do not know.

I could refer to several other products as well. The hon. members did not refer to hens’ eggs, but there was a loss on the export of this article, and the consumer in South Africa must pay 3,5 cents on a kilogram of eggs to cover the export loss. Do you know, Sir, that the “voorskot” which the tobacco farmer gets today is less than his production costs? What am I to do? It is true that this is Health Year and people must stop smoking—I am trying to stop myself—but the point is that every one of these industries has its specific difficulties. I do not want to go into any further detail.

I want to come to the increases in the cost of production. There are people who say that the farmer’s inputs, the production cost, must be subsidized. The price of petrol for agriculture was 9,9 cents a litre in 1972. Today it is 39,3 cents a litre. Over a period of six years, therefore, it has risen by 297%. In 1972, the diesel price was 5,11 cents a litre; today it is 24,1 cents a litre—an increase of 372%. The Government cannot help this. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs can do sweet blow-all if Iran, Saoedi Arabia or any other Opec country decides to increase the price of oil. This applies not only to South Africa, but to all countries in the world.

[Inaudible.]

We shall proceed with Sasol 2 and the other expansions of Sasol. There is not a single consumer of fuel in this country who has ever complained about the fact that he has to pay two cents a litre extra to finance Sasol. That is patriotism. No one has complained about that No farmer, no decent Prog even, has ever complained about that. We are undertaking these Sasol projects to enable us to become self-sufficient.

However, what has happened with regard to the price of tractors? In the six years from 1972 up to now, the price of a 50 horsepower tractor has increased by 215%, the price of combines by 154%, the price of a maize-planter by 186% and the price of a wheat-planter by 208%. This is the price which the firm in America charges for this product because of inflation in that country and this is the price we are paying for it today.

I come now to the average rise in the price of fertilizer. We are self-sufficient with regard to superphosphate, but there are some kinds of nitrogen and sulphur which we cannot fully manufacture yet and which we therefore have to import. The price of fertilizer has increased by 170% on average. The budget provides for a subsidy of R12 million on fertilizer. I have said that this subsidy should rather be abolished. In 1974, we paid R161 million for fertilizer in agriculture, but today, the farmers’ fertilizer account has risen to R360 million. What does a subsidy of R12 million mean when the expenditure is R360 million?

As far as railage is concerned, we are all glad about the fact that this has not been increased this year. However, the Railways is a business enterprise. While we are on the subject of subsidies, I want to ask one thing: Do we not realize how much this country has to spend on the improvement of housing for Black people, for example? How are we to divide the cake as far as subsidies are concerned? It would be ideal if every house in Soweto were electrified and its owner could own a television set so that he could look at the decent news programmes on television, thereby escaping the bad influence of some people. That is the ideal we want to realize.

As far as railage is concerned, the internal tariff for maize has risen by 264% since 1972. The transport cost of an ox of 320 kg and over was R1,64 in 1972. Today it is R7,42—an increase of 352%.

We are on the subject of subsidizing. The total increase over the six years in the production cost of fertilizer, fuel, machinery and transport equipment etc., amounts to R1 000 million. In other words, if we want to keep food prices at the level they were on six years ago, we shall have to take R1 000 million out of this budget to subsidize them. It is easy to say that the inputs in agriculture should be subsidized, but a patchwork subsidy of R20 million for fertilizer while the total fertilizer account is R360 million—even if that subsidy were doubled, it would still be a filly—is not even a drop in the ocean compared with the total expenditure of agriculture.

I now want to tell hon. members where the solution lies, no matter how unpopular it may be. Fortunately, the American Minister of Agriculture and some other parties in that country—we all get along very well—supply all the necessary information. I quote their figures in the publication Foreign Agriculture, because hon. members will not believe my figures. Where the food prices of the Western world are compared, they have been including Pretoria for the past seven months. I shall refer only to two. Sirloin beef costs $10,7 a kilogram in Bonn; in Canberra, $6,9; in Copenhagen, $18,9; in London, $10,05; in Mexico—the cheapest—$3,8; in Ottawa, $6,4; in Paris, $8,7; and in Pretoria, $4,3. According to the world-wide surveys, a loaf of white bread of the same weight costs $1,57 in Bonn; in Brussels it costs $1,11; in Copenhagen, $1,72; in Mexico—where it is cheap—$,76; in Paris, $2,23; and in Pretoria, 34 cents. A loaf of white bread costs 34 American cents in Pretoria—by far the lowest price in the world. We are not unsympathetic to the consumer in South Africa.

A problem arose in our country at one stage as a result of a low gold price and of enormous expenses which the Minister of Finance had to meet Everyone agreed that a tax of 4% should be levied on every loaf of bread and on every litre of milk which was sold. No one was dissatisfied. In this way, everyone—White, Brown and Black—could make his contribution. If food is taxed today, what is the use of saying: Subsidize all these other inputs to such an extent that there will not be any rise in the consumer price? I am not unsympathetic towards the less well-to-do people in South Africa, but as Minister of Agriculture one has to satisfy two kinds of clients. The first are the farmers. The second are the consumers, and I should like to take them all with me. Let us see at what is advertised in one of the morning papers in Bloemfontein. Meatorama—and this is the same in Johannesburg—advertises as follows: “½ lamb, R1,55; mince, R1,27 and beef hindquarter, R1,13 per kilogram”. If the housewife just wants to take a little trouble and to see where she can find cheaper food, she can save a great deal. In this morning’s Citizen, Mr. Bester says—

When I compare this with world prices and I see how we spend our money in South Africa, I see that we spent R1 611 million on meat last year. Of this, the fanner receives only a small percentage. Hon. members must see what is happening today. The consumer wants his article in a plastic container. I am not unsympathetic, but when I was a little boy, I myself—I remember it well from the time just after the depression—bought meat which was wrapped in newspaper. My mother simply washed it. Today it is wrapped in plastic, perhaps placed in a little plastic tray, and this is put in another plastic bag, and if one buys shoe polish or something of that nature along with the meat, they put that in a separate bag as well, not in the same bag as the meat. These are all things which are happening along the road and which are making the article more and more expensive.

Last year, the following amounts were spent in South Africa: On bread and wheat products, R1 300 million; milk and eggs, R625 million; sugar, processed fruit and jam, R482 million; other foodstuffs, R941 million; tobacco, R554 million and, by far the highest of them all, on liquor, R1 702 million. Hon. members must not tell me that it is only the Whites who drink. We all drink. I have nothing against the liquor industry, because the wine farmers are also my customers. I just mention this to illustrate…

You are everyone’s friend.

Yes. I am the hon. member’s friend too.

The hon. member for Wynberg raised quite a number of matters and I shall deal with them one by one. In the first place, he wanted to know what the Government’s point of view was with regard to the decline in the number of farmers, especially the small farmer. We are a country with a free economy, and we have never adopted the standpoint that the big farmer should be helped by the Government. When an application for assistance comes from someone who owns two economic units, he can forget about it, because the Land Bank will not help him, nor will the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. He will then have to turn for assistance to the commercial banks or other financial institutions. However, when such a person has only one economic unit, the doors of the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure are opened to him and we try to help him. Every hon. member on that side of the House will agree that there must be economic units. Everyone says that we must enable people to have an economic unit. What must one do to have such an economic unit? Surely we would have to make two units into one, and that would automatically reduce the number of people in the rural areas.

Holland made a survey in this connection and found that farmers were leaving their land. According to a recent survey by an international labour bureau, approximately 60 million farmers have left their land in the industrialized world since 1950. By the year 2000, a further 60 million will have exchanged agriculture for industry. It is further emphasized that the average age of the farming population of the world is rapidly rising and that more and more young people are flocking to the cities.

Gerrie did.

Yes. Gerrie is actually going to hold an auction; can you believe that, Sir? The hon. the Prime Minister has said that populating the border areas should be priority number one. The hon. the Prime Minister has said, and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence has emphasized, that it serves no purpose to try to defend this country if one does not have sympathetic people living on the land. The Steyn Committee was appointed and its recommendations were accepted in toto by the Cabinet, and we shall introduce an amendment to the Act concerned during this session, a matter I shall say more about on Monday, when I shall inform hon. members fully on what we propose to do to populate our border areas more densely.

As far as the small farmer is concerned, I just want to say that we have come to the stage where the inputs are so high and the profit margin has become so small that we can no longer look after the big farmer. A 45 horse-power tractor costs R18 000 today, and one cannot allow such an expensive implement to be handled by people who cannot do it properly. The man who farms on a smaller scale and who has to give personal attention to every aspect of the farming operations is the farmer on whom we concentrate today. It has also been the Government’s standpoint in the past to try to keep that type of farmer in agriculture.

The hon. member for Wynberg also said that we should expand the domestic market. Surely that is what we are trying to do, partly through advertising. We are trying to achieve as much as possible and we have officials working overseas on a full-time basis to promote exports. Our control boards are constantly in contact with the outside world and are constantly trying to expand our foreign sales as well as domestic consumption.

When the hon. member for Malmesbury is speaking, one can hear at once that he speaks with authority. He knows the game, because he is a director of Wesgraan and of several other agricultural co-operatives and enterprises in organized agriculture. During the recess I accompanied him on a visit to drought-stricken areas. At Porterville I talked to a farmer who told me that he knew his yield would be 30% less than the amount of seed he had sown. Then one’s heart bleeds for him. With such a man, someone who could make practical suggestions, and with a sympathetic Minister of Finance, it was possible to establish the Jacobs Committee, a committee which we are going to expand further in the future. The hon. member for Malmesbury asked us to provide in the main budget for subsidies on bread, etc. He does not want it to be the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture. To us it does not matter. The Wheat Board must receive a subsidy from the Department of Agricultural Economics. The Maize Board receives R50 million for storage and handling. This is not a producer subsidy, but a consumer subsidy. The Department of Agricultural Economics has to administer these things. That is why that department is included under my Vote. I do not think we should remove it from my department.

The hon. member for Middelburg is quite right in referring to the rise in interest rates. I just want to point out that the cost inputs to which I referred a short while ago do not include interest rates. Mr. Chairman, do you know that when you and I came to this Parliament 13½ years ago, interest rates were 6% Do you not remember, Mr. Chairman? Oh, you will not know, because you have never had an overdraft at the bank. [Interjections.] But I am up to my ears in debt, so I know what it is all about [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Losberg is quite right in saying that a poor harvest cannot be compensated for by a price. That is impossible. Last year we had a maize harvest of 9,8 million tons. At last year’s price to the farmer of R80 a ton, he received R780 million. This year we are giving the farmer R100 a ton, but the harvest is only 6,5 million tons. So the farmer is receiving only R650 million. Therefore, a poor harvest cannot be compensated for by means of a price.

An attempt can be made, though, to make up a backlog by means of the price. In any event, I believe that we are going to have a harvest of 10 million tons next year. The way I know the Cabinet, they certainly will not reduce the price. Not the way I know them. [Interjections.] I am just preparing people, Mr. Chairman! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Mooi River informed me that he was unfortunately not able to be here this afternoon. He asked important questions. I shall reply to him on Monday. Particularly important was his question about sales tax on diesel for transport of agricultural products.

†We are negotiating with the hon. the Minister of Finance. I fully agree with what the hon. member said. That is the reason why I shouted “Hear, hear” when he was speaking. I fully agree with him. I make no bones about it. It is a practical question and I believe we may be able to convince the hon. the Minister of Finance to abolish this tax on certain diesel products used for the transport of food products to the market.

But the hon. the Minister of Finance is also a tough cookie.

Yes, but then it is a question of two bulls pitted against each other. [Interjections.] I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Bethal. As chairman of our agricultural study group and as chairman of the co-operative of which I am also a member, a co-operative which adopts a sympathetic attitude towards its members, and also in view of several other enterprises to which the hon. member for Malmesbury referred, I want to confirm that during all the years that we have been here together, this hon. member has proved that he talks the language of the farmer and that he knows the farmer’s problems. He warns us to be careful of one thing. What official of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services would not agree with him? The fertilizer subsidy, if we were to grant such a thing, or the contribution we make, is not for the sake of the farmer, but for the sake of our soil. Our soil does not belong to us, but to our children. It is a commandment, one of the first orders given to man: “This garden you must cultivate. You must not mess it about.” [Interjections.] I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member about that. And then we must not use the word “subsidy”. We should rather speak of production promotion. There is a stigma attached to the word “subsidy”. The hon. member is quite right This thing has caught us. The hon. member said so. We had a good rainfall for a few years. We had not been paying specific attention to prices because turnovers had been satisfactory. Suddenly there was an increase in the price of fuel, followed by a series of input rises, and on top of that the rain stayed away. So we were caught. Let that be a problem, then. We shall put our heads together and solve it in the future.

The hon. member for Meyerton is a man after my own heart He gave us the example of a spare part which cost R193 and said that R36 would be an acceptable price. As far as I am concerned, that kind of thing can really and truly be made for R12 or R15. To me, this goes to prove again that our farmers should handle this kind of thing co-operatively. I am almost sure that spare part was not bought from a co-operative. If it was bought from one, the directors of that co-operative should all be voted out of office. [Interjections.] However, I shall bring this matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, because he is just as concerned about it To pay R193 for that little piece of iron is really going too far.

The hon. member for Barberton knows that we are going to visit the South-East Transvaal Lowveld. On Monday I shall discuss the border cases which were mentioned.

† The hon. member for East London North referred to cholesterol and Mr. Preston’s message to the farmers. I was present when he delivered it in the Eastern Cape. Afterwards I received copies and gave them to the hon. the Minister of Health. Just before he left, he told me that the Department of Health is investigating this whole story about cholesterol.

*One thing bothers me, however. I had recently become Deputy-Minister of Agriculture when I had to pilot through the Act which legalized yellow margarine. I did it with my tongue in my cheek. My only consolation was that we were providing that imported oil, palm-oil or whale-oil could not be used, but only ground-nut and sunflower oil, so that the South African agriculture could be assisted. The people then told me that they would be reasonable in their advertisements. We said that we were subjecting them to a quota so as to prevent unequal competition. At that time, the consumption of butter in this country was 54 000 tons, and the consumption of margarine was nil. Today, the consumption of butter is 24 000 tons and that of margarine is 73 000 tons. When they were under a quota, they kept telling me that they were going to exceed the quota. As a gimmick they said in the Press that there was going to be a scarcity of margarine and that the quota was going to be exhausted. Mr. Chairman, you know what a housewife is like. When they hear that something is going to become scarce, they lay it in. Eventually I said that it was a farce and that the quota should be abolished. Surely this kind of advertisement creates unequal competition.

I am grateful for the fact that the best hotels in South Africa have only butter on their menus, no margarine. However, the hon. the Minister of Health said that 10% at the most, and on average only 5%, of our people had to be careful of animal fat in their diets. Is one to prejudice the whole industry because of the fact that 5% or 10% of the people should eat white margarine? I ask myself whether we have not given these people a long enough innings. Should we not consider amending this Act again? People can eat as much margarine as they like, as long as it is white. Or the people must say that they will put an end to what the hon. member for East London North mentioned. The hon. member said there were people who said: “If you love your husband, give him margarine.” I have written “If you want to keep him virile and active, give him butter.” [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Ladybrand referred to the good work done by our extension officers and our researchers. We shall discuss that on Monday. The hon. member also wants us to keep the farmers on the land. We have a strange disposition. I never become sentimental about these things. If a man is close to the soil and he has to move away because of circumstances—weather conditions or an uneconomic unit—and he has to go and live in Hillbrow, Houghton or in the concrete jungles of Johannesburg, he will have a resistance against temptations such as drugs, etc., because he still has his contact with the soil. I cannot disagree with anyone who tells me that we should keep the man in the rural areas. It is only these other difficulties to which I have referred which are making it so difficult.

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke says that we subsidized the gold mines during bad years. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member that we should be proud of being a part of an industry in South Africa which receives the smallest subsidy. What a pleasure it was to me the other day when we went with the hon. the Minister of Community Development to look at Mitchell’s Plain. One may be proud to see what is being built for the Coloured people to uplift them. I thought to myself that that Coloured man went to work in a factory and that the factory owner did not even know that he was receiving a subsidy to enable his worker to live in a subsidized house. What does the farmer do? He builds his own houses. He may obtain a loan, but he has to pay it back at an interest rate. He builds his own houses. It is true that there are still many people who are at a disadvantage as far as farm dwellings are concerned. But consider all the factors. The transportation of the worker from Mitchell’s Plain, or the transportation of the worker who lives in Ga-Rankuwa and works at a factory in Rosslyn, is subsidized. When someone establishes a factory at Rosslyn or on the border, he receives border benefits, special rail tariffs, special water tariffs and special electricity tariffs. But thousands and thousands of farmers on the border do not get a solitary cent by way of a subsidy. Those are my people and they are working without any subsidy. Truly, Sir, we must spell this matter out again. I want to tell the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke that we must refer more often to these things so that our farming population may feel proud again and may realize that in relation to the other industries, they receive the smallest subsidy.

The hon. member for South Coast referred to venison. If venison to the value of R51 million is exported, we must certainly give attention to it and if there is too much red tape, the question arises whether we should not place this industry under the control of the Meat Board.

The amount is R4 million.

Oh! I almost got a fright I thought the figure was R51 million.

As far as the Kruger National Park is concerned, I want to tell the hon. member that we have the figures in respect of every animal species in the park. Every animal species has been counted with the aid of helicopters. Compared with the figures of 10 years ago, there are far more of every kind of game in the park today. We have had a very good rainfall for a number of years and the drinking-places in the park are full of water. The grass is tall and thick and the animals are scattered all over the park. I shall give the hon. member the numbers so that he may have all the information available to him.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove said there is a dyke with a lot of holes in it and I use all my fingers and all my toes, as well as the hon. the Deputy Minister’s fingers and toes, but we cannot close all the holes in the dyke. That is so. There are a lot of holes, but I can give the hon. member the assurance that we will yet cover them. With regard to the maize price, the hon. member said that maize farmers were protected, but not the other farmers. If one looks at the prices for, say, sunflower seed and ground nuts, the increase in the price to these farmers was more than the increase in the price for the maize farmers, because we are paying a high export price. At the moment we are exporting edible ground nuts to Japan at R800 per ton and the farmer here is getting R400 per ton. But he is also getting a “agterskot”. This is not a one-channel scheme such as that which applies to maize or wheat. It is a system whereby a “voorskot” and a “agterskot” is paid. The hon. member therefore cannot say that we are not protecting the other farmers in South Africa.

The hon. member for Orange Grove said that the farmer was getting 16 cents for a litre of milk while the consumer had to pay 37 cents per litre. The hon. member must, however, bear in mind that the milk has to be pasteurized, put into a disposable container and delivered to the consumer at his house or his flat. Hence the price of 37 cents per litre. In between there is also the cost of the packaging, and so on. I will explain in more detail at a later stage the difference between the price to the consumer and the producer, but in this regard the hon. member for Vryburg referred to what the small retailer was getting.

*Mr. Chairman, people often refer to the price which the consumer has to pay for vegetables. In Pretoria, only the Greeks and the Portuguese have vegetable shops. The profit margin is very small and they must watch their overheads. Their children must virtually grow up in the shop and they must help to serve the customers when they come home from school in the afternoon. I once told a group of housewives: “Raise some money and I shall give you a licence to open a vegetable shop in Church Street.” They did not accept my offer, for on the whole, the profit margin is not so big.

The hon. member for Eshowe spoke about the vegetable farmers who serve as a buffer and also as a link with our Black neighbours. It is very important that he mentioned this. This is another function of the border farmer. He serves as a liaison officer to maintain good relations with our Black neighbours. I shall reply on Monday to the other matters he mentioned. I want to thank the hon. member for Marico for his positive attitude at all the meetings we held together. That is where the Steyn Committee originated. He wants the Meat Board to give special marketing benefits to those areas because of the drought. The Meat Board is giving attention to that request. However, we cannot possibly accommodate everyone during the next three months, because we cannot consume more than 2,2 million head of cattle now. However, there will be some bright spots as far as exports are concerned. I have thanked the hon. member for Vryburg. He is in the Other Place at the moment and cannot be here.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said we must encourage the export of livestock. [Interjections.]

*Oh yes, that is right, he spoke Afrikaans. The hon. member is quite right. There are people who conduct slaughterings according to their faith and who do not believe us when we say that the cattle have been slaughtered in the presence of…

A rabbi.

No, this is not Israel. Halaal is an example. They want to slaughter the cattle there so that they may bleed to death in a specific way. That market has grown enormously. I did not know that a veterinary inspection was so expensive. However, the Meat Board and the exporters concerned have not contacted me about the problem. There are great markets in the East and in other countries to which we can export live cattle and sheep. Only the other day, a ship was loaded with almost 3 000 sheep. Everyone told me that it went beautifully. There were no complaints. The country concerned must only submit a certificate to the effect that it is satisfied with regard to blue-tongue, etc.

The question of milk on the Railways and the Airways I shall take up with the hon. the Minister of Transport. However, he also has his difficulties. That kind of thing is sometimes given out on tender.

The hon. member referred to the fact that I had said that hygiene would be the death of us yet. I just want to correct that hon. member on one point. In the old days, a man slaughtered one sheep and one ox. He could simply do that on the ground. In Teheran I saw a fellow catch a goat behind a small shop and cut its throat. He slaughtered it right there on the ground and it was perfectly clean. He had a pitcher with him and he washed his hands in the same water every time. However, it is a different matter when one slaughters 2 000 head of cattle and 6 000 sheep a day, as at City Deep. Have hon. members ever seen the load of dung that comes from the stomachs of 2 000 head of cattle and 6 000 sheep? On hot days one must have hygiene measures. One cannot allow gastric fever to break out in a city. That is why we had an abattoir built at a cost of R45 million which is one of the most modern in the world.

I have tried to reply as briefly as possible to most questions and I shall continue on Monday.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to be able to participate in this debate after such an active, optimistic Minister. I am pleased that he also mentioned the smallholders and said that there was sympathy and aid for them too.

Today I specifically want to discuss a category of smallholder that receives no assistance from the State. In last year’s agriculture debate I referred to the smallholder in general. I said that we should develop their potential to the full. However, there is a category of farmer—there are very few of them—that receives no financial aid at all, and these are the part-time farmers. Their full potential should be developed as well. Financial institutions that usually grant assistance to farmers, do not assist those farmers. If they are assisted, it is in a small way. There are certain financial institutions, for example the Land Bank, that force part-time farmers who do not want to resign from their work, to resign. If they do not resign from their work, they lose all the financial assistance which they would have been able to obtain or which they did, in fact, receive up to that stage.

In 1971 the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture found that even then there were 93 000 such smallholder farmers in South Africa, most of them, of course, part-time farmers. I think that the number will be considerably higher at this stage.

I know that the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act was passed to counteract the fragmentation of land, but a new pattern has developed since that Act was passed. Units of just larger than 25 morgen, are still being created on a large scale. If we want to be realistic, we must admit that there will always be people who desire to have a piece of land of their own and hope to supplement their income on that piece of land. Often these are people with quite limited financial resources. In many cases they often risk everything they have in order to undertake such a project On the other hand we probably all agree that it is a waste of agricultural potential to cut up land in such a way. The commission which carried out the investigation, also found that at the moment the supply of smallholdings exceeds the demand by 50 000. I think that this is an alarming figure which we should not fail to take cognizance of. Surely we cannot allow such a situation to continue.

To me there are two approaches which are important with regard to part-time farmers. In the first place, we have to determine whether it is really an evil to allow further subdivision, because if it is, we have to restrict it In the second place, we have to utilize the existing smallholdings to the full. We must derive the full agricultural potential from them.

Today I should like to say a few words on this second alternative, the agricultural potential of the smallholdings. Recently a thesis by Dr. W. A. Odendaal appeared which described a very interesting study on 250 part-time farms in the Eastern Cape in 24 agricultural districts. I just wish to refer to a few of his very interesting findings. In the first place he found that no evidence could be found that bona fide farming is a prerequisite for effective farming. In the second place he found that the receipt of non-farming income raised the standard of living of that farmer. In the third place, he found that part-time farmers served as a transitional stage for the entry into agriculture of young, enterprising farmers. This, too, is a very important matter. In the fourth place he found that the number of farmers who work full-time in other employment, would increase on marginal farms in particular. It is obvious that people who cannot make a livelihood on the farm alone, will try to supplement their income.

In his recommendations he also made a few very interesting remarks. In the first place he said that part-time farming should be accepted as an acceptable form of enterprise because it was going to increase in future whether we wanted it to or not. In the second place he said that the agricultural credit policy had to be modernized so that people who entered agriculture and who possessed desirable personality characteristics, could be assisted if they wanted to work outside the farming enterprise. I think that it is very important that he should allow the emphasis to fall on the personality characteristics of the individual. In the third place he says that entrepreneurs on marginal farming units should be allowed to supplement their income outside the farm.

The vast majority of smallholdings simply provide the family with a place to stay. We all know that this is the case. With thorough planning and development the production potential of the smallholding can, however, be utilized in order to feed our cities for a long time yet This will also improve the position of the smallholding owner if he plans properly and develops the potential. The secret therefore lies in thorough planning, and for that purpose the services of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and Agricultural Economics and Marketing are available. This is really the only assistance which the smallholder can obtain. I want to thank the Department of Agricultural Technical Services for assisting in the past when these people have applied for assistance.

This type of farming is much more complicated than normal fanning, because the normal farmer concentrates on one or two branches, but many of these smallholders have to farm with fruit, vegetables, poultry, slaughter stock, small stock, honey bees, tunnel farming, and irrigated shrubs. He has to apply himself in many fields and has to make a study of each one, because if one of them is a failure, his whole operation can fail. For this reason I want to reiterate that sound planning and technical knowledge are indispensable and must be freely available to farmers.

I also wish to say that this type of farming also provides a fine opportunity for the further development of our co-operative idea. Surely this is an ideal situation for the establishment of co-operatives, where farmers can make joint use of implements and can pack and market their products jointly. If necessary—I do not know whether it is—the Co-operative Societies Act must be amended to make these things possible. People who have been to Israel and have studied the kibbutz system, were very impressed by it. However, there is another system which is followed in Israel and that is the Moshav system. A Moshav system involves a small co-operative farm. In the Moshav system, individual initiative and entrepreneuring spirit are still decisive, other than in the kibbutz system, because each farmer works for himself. For this reason I am saying that we shall be able to achieve something with this system in future.

These small farms are a long-cherished dream to many people and the Government and the agricultural departments must ensure that this dream does not become a nightmare to these people as well as our country.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Humansdorp has detailed some of the problems of the part-time farmer. For the most part I agree with him, but I do not intend to follow him in my speech and I hope he will excuse me.

I want to come back to a few things the hon. the Minister has said in his reply during the early part of the debate. The first thing I should like to come back to, is the whole question of margarine and butter. I think we can say beyond any shadow of doubt that recently the situation has changed because medical opinion has changed. We are now in a situation in which butter is not considered to be the hazard to health as according to most medical people it was, a short time ago. The hon. the Minister has made some very sympathetic and very amusing noises. One is always conscious of the fact that the hon. the Minister’s personality carries him through most things so that when he sits down, one can be absolutely sure that he has not made any promises about anything. I think that at this stage he should give consideration to really taking some action about the margarine/butter controversy. I should like to say that the situation is so changed now that I think that we should review file legislation that allowed margarine to become yellow and to imitate butter. I think that some active steps have to be taken to promote the sale of butter. I should like to see the hon. the Minister introducing legislation making it illegal for margarine to have the same colour as butter. I know that that is an old controversy which was fought about in the House before I became a member, but I think circumstances have changed. I think there will be a great deal of merit in going back to the old system because of changed circumstances. I am sure that it would certainly assist the dairy industry and improve the health of our country. I think that something could be done in this regard.

The time for it is not ripe. We are now importing 2 500 tons of butter from New Zealand because we wanted to help the industry.

That, of course, puts me on a hobby-horse of mine. Unfortunately I have to say that the reason why we have to import butter at the present time, is because so many dairy farmers have found over a period that it was just not worthwhile carrying on and therefore got out of the industry. [Interjections.] They found that the game was not worth the candle and so they got out. We are in a situation in which farmers in many good and ideal dairy and grazing areas have changed over to mealies, because there has been some sort of stability as far as mealie prices are concerned. It was not worth participating in the dairy industry at all. I drive a lot to the eastern Transvaal, which the hon. the Minister knows well. When I go along the main road towards Nelspruit, the whole area around Belfast, which originally was all grazing area, is now just mealies as far as the eye can see. It is not the sort of mealie-land that one finds in the maize-triangle; it is not absolutely ideal mealie-land. It should still be grazing land. I believe that such has been the result of a certain measure of stability as far as mealies are concerned and instability as far as the dairy industry is concerned that we are getting an incorrect land usage. This is something which we are going to regret in future, and I think that in certain circumstances, in certain instances, we are in fact damaging the land. However, I should like the hon. the Minister when he replies on Monday to explain further why he believes the time is not ripe. I think this would give such stimulus to the dairy industry that we might well get a situation where a lot of farmers who have deserted the dairy industry might decide to come back. The only way a new market will be created for butter is to stimulate the demand. If one stimulates the demand, one will get to a situation where butter will have its rightful place. There will also be a much more balanced farming picture.

I now want to return to another matter the hon. the Minister spoke about. That concerns the Kruger National Park and the good rainy seasons we have had for the last six or seven years in that area. He gave this as the reason why one did not see the huge herds of wildebeest and zebra that one used to see in the past. With respect, this is only partly right. I think that the hon. the Minister probably realizes that there have been tremendous problems as far as the grazers are concerned. There are a couple of species, for example the roan and sable antelope, whose very survival has been in question, and there have been a lot of theories about this.

However, the hon. the Minister will remember that four or five years ago they were actually culling lions because they thought that the reason for the drop in the wildebeest population was that the predators were killing all the young wildebeest. So they actually culled lions for a time. This is one of the theories they followed through. They subsequently decided that this was not so and stopped culling predators. I believe that one of the current theories is that because all the seepages are full the game is spread and therefore more lions are able to operate in more parts of the park. Instead of hanging around one or two waterholes and the two or three river areas that used to be their natural hunting-ground, there are now many hunting-grounds, and the result is that there is damage to the medium-sized grazer population.

I want to put forward another possibility. I believe that one of the problems that has resulted from the wet seasons has been the tremendous grass growth. A lot of rank grass has grown, and this grass is just not suitable for the grazers. There has actually almost been a change in habitat because there has not been suitable grass. The normal balance of nature allows the larger animals, like elephants and buffalo, to trample this grass down. They trample it down in their normal daily wanderings through the grasslands. A lot of grass gets trampled down, and in the areas where it has been trampled down, new grass grows up. There has also been another change in habitat in that there has been a lot of thick bush and tree encroachment in certain areas of the reserve, and the net result is that where those bushes and trees grow no grass suitable for grazers grows underneath. This change of habitat has made it difficult for that sort of grazer to find the sort of vegetation it wants to eat. I am coming to the point. The point is that I believe that we have made a considerable mistake in culling the numbers of elephants and buffalo that we have culled during the years that there has been a lot of rain. I am the first one to accept that culling is necessary; it is not something that one can do away with entirely. I have seen experiments, in areas which lack elephants, by people who have looked at the theories I am now putting forward. These people have done a certain amount of bush-clearing with bulldozers, which is not the sort of thing one wishes to do in a park like the Kruger Park. But they have nevertheless cleared the bush. The net result of this has been a tremendous stimulation of the sort of grass that the grazers eat. It is quite remarkable to see how those grazers have come back to that area. Even the hunting dogs have come back, because once the grasslands returned, the balance of the game population improved considerably. As in the case of most theories, so also can we never be sure of this theory until one has put it into practice. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister, however, that I think that some of the ecological theories that have been put forward in all sincerity and without any supporting knowledge—I am not blaming anybody for it—and have been carried out in practice in the Kruger Park, have been erroneous. I think we have made mistakes, but we have also learned from those mistakes. I think we are finding out what should be done, but I come back to the point that we should be very careful about culling programmes for elephants and buffalo. I should hate to think that we cull numbers of these animals purely and simply to keep the by-products factory at the Kruger Park open. This would be out of spirit with our whole approach to game conservation. I should like to have the opportunity, however, to take the hon. the Minister there and to show him the results of these experiments. Perhaps he can find time later in the year to accompany me there. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by praising the hon. the Minister for his positive contribution to the Eastern Cape during the past financial year. Exactly a year ago I made an appeal on behalf of the 8 500 farmers of the Eastern Cape region and asked for the Agricultural Technical Services office to be moved to the research institute at Dӧhne near Stutterheim. It is a great pleasure for me to convey my thanks to the hon. the Minister for taking action in this regard. It is good to see that the building complex, which will house the officials and which will cost almost R¾ million, has almost reached roof level.

Yes, but Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Queenstown, is now angry with me.

While building operations are in progress there, I want to ask the hon. the Minister, in the same breath, to build the proposed dairy unit complex there.

After the discussion of this Vote last year I supported the representations made by the Gonubie municipality and requested the hon. the Minister to proclaim the invader plant, sesbania, to be a weed. On the 9th of last month it was announced in the Government Gazette that sesbania has been proclaimed a weed throughout the Republic. This measure is of great importance to the high rainfall areas of South Africa in particular, areas which include large parts of the Eastern Cape. The municipality of Gonubie now wants to know whether a small authority, such as they, which is now being charged with a huge task, cannot receive assistance in the form of a discount on the purchase of toxic substances.

East London and the surrounding areas are heavily infested with this plant This area is part of my constituency and I think it would be a good thing if the department could assist in this regard. I should also like to convey my thanks to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services for the seriousness with which they have tackled the nasella tuft-grass problem. The principal extension officer of the Eastern Cape sub-region, Mr. Francois Jordaan, in co-operation with Mr. Amie Aucamp of the Dӧhne research institute and other information officials and technicians are making a courageous attempt to deal with the problem in this area. We wish all the people involved every success with the execution of this enormous task.

In Komga another ugly threat has raised its head. This is the plant Kubusie lantana, a plant which is polluting the upper reaches of the Kei River, from the Komga district, the Kei River to Keimond. Now it is true that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has not yet carried out a survey of the infestation. From a country-wide point of view this problem has been localized. For that reason the department is hesitating to proclaim this plant to be a weed. I understand this problem of the department. However, the farmers there also have a real problem. The area borders on an international river. Weed seeds land on their properties, and they find that their farms become infested with weeds, not through any negligence, indifference or, as we so often have to hear, inefficiency. This is a problem which they are continually being subjected to. Now they have made a very reasonable request, which I support. In fact, I have already conveyed that request to the department. I am, therefore, now making a plea to this positive hon. the Minister to provide those farmers with toxic substances which they can spray on the lantana, as many of them are custommed to doing in the process of the eradication of jointed cactus, viz. by way of toxic substances made available by the department.

Mr. Chairman, as a result of problems which have arisen in connection with the marketing of dairy products, many tears have been shed in my constituency. Since the collapse of the market many farming patterns have been thrown into disarray. There has been considerable disruption, and the image of farming as an industry has been harmed. I therefore see the increase in the maize price as a godsend, in the sense that maize production could become the substitute activity, and maize the primary product of that group of farmers. Cattle farmers as well will now begin to produce maize with greater interest and dedication.

The border area of the Eastern Cape, of which my constituency comprises a great part, has to import approximately 1,2 million bags of maize every year to supplement the local production. This quantity will now…

M. Chairman, on a point of order: I want to draw your attention to the fact that a quorum is not present in the House.

The hon. member for Griqualand East may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I hope I will be given a little injury time now. I was pointing out that 1,2 million bags of maize have to be imported every year in the area of the Eastern Cape to supplement the local production. I was pointing out that maize will cost us approximately R12 million in future. [Interjections.] I think that the existing price will now serve as the necessary stimulus to increased maize production.

Our sheep farmers are now being told by the hon. the Minister to dip our sheep between October 1979 and February 1980 in order to protect them against the threat of scabies. The farmers are not complaining about this. No, they are obeying the order. But some farmers have misgivings. They want to know whether the prices of the dipping substances will not soar again, now that the demand for them is guaranteed. Sheep farmers are asking the hon. the Minister please to keep a watchful eye on the situation.

The sheep farmers of Kaffraria have another urgent request They want the well-known and well-tried Cooper’s dip to be made available to them again. During the ’twenties scabies was eradicated and after that the disease has been kept under constant control and our sheep kept clean of this feared disease by means of Cooper’s Dip. A few years ago this dip was forced from the market by means of legislation and we were left with dipping substances which could not control or prevent the disease. An effective, cheap substance had to be replaced by expensive substances which were not developed to counteract this sickness. The result is that now, as was the case 55 years ago, we again have to fight the same battle which our predecessors fought so successfully for us. This request has continually been made at agricultural congresses. In the situation which we now find ourselves, it has beme essential for the hon. the Minister to reexamine this matter with a different approach.

We have heard how high production costs have caused problems. I want to tell hon. members that some of these problems have become endemic and these in turn have reached epidemic proportions I should like to discuss this further, but my time has expired and for that reason I shall merely outline certain key thoughts to the hon. the Minister. He himself can colour in the picture further.

Ons boere wil so graag produseer,

maar die koste maak ons seer.

Ons wil nie rumoer,

Nee, ons wil maar net boer.

Bied ons die regte prys,

en voedsel sal verrys.

Ons boere sal nie kla,

maar sien ons voed aan Afrika.

Sela!

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. poetical member for Griqualand East most sincerely on the very fine speech he has made this afternoon. The hon. member made such a moving plea for his constituency to the hon. the Minister last year that he softened the hon. the Minister’s heart. I want to congratulate him on the fine contribution he makes in this House on behalf of Griqualand East. I think that for the first time in a long time Griqualand East has a representative in this House who also champions the cause of the farmers in his constituency. I also want to tell the hon. member for Griqualand East that I am not an authority on grass species, viz. sesbania, which he mentioned and which is encroaching into his part of the world. However, it seems that they have already eradicated the NRPenia and the Progfedpenia in the Eastern Cape.

Today I want to discuss a region which has certain problems with which the hon. Minister and the Deputy Minister are well acquainted. The hon. the Deputy Minister recently announced at Upington that an investigation is going to be instituted into the establishment of a water pipeline from the Orange River in order to supply water to certain parts of the Kalahari. I am aware that the Lower Orange Agricultural Union has made representations for such a pipeline for many years now in order, firstly, to provide a certain part of the Kalahari, which has excellent grazing but no underground water, with water. Secondly, to provide large areas of the Kalahari, which have already been developed, but where the underground water supply is very meagre and expensive, with water.

In these parts we find excellent grazing and the Karakul sheep in particular flourishes in this area. The Karakul industry is earning a great deal of foreign exchange for South Africa at this point in time. If water can be supplied to this area to solve the livestock water supply problem, this region could provide a further solid contribution in respect of food supply and in addition, contribute towards earning even more foreign exchange for South Africa.

I want to express my gratitude to the Ministry of Agriculture for the fact that an investigation is being instituted in cooperation with the Department of Water Affairs into the provision of water in that part of the Kalahari where the problem occurs. I want to give my support to the representations made by organized agriculture, because I believe that through organized agriculture the farmer can make his voice heard in the highest Government circles and they may rest assured that the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister will give them a sympathetic hearing. Organized agriculture made a very strong case as to why and how water can be provided to that arid region.

I wish to make a further proposal in support of this important matter. As far as I know, it has been proposed that this region be supplied with water by pipeline from the Orange River. I propose that in the course of this investigation the Vaal-Gamagara Water Scheme be examined as a possible source of water supply to this area. The Vaal-Gamagara Water Scheme has already been completed and was built to provide the mining and other industries in the northern Cape with water from the Vaal River, at Delportshoop. A branch line has already been built from the Vaal-Gamagara pipeline to Olifantshoek.

It is interesting to note that the water being pumped at this stage to the Sishen/Hotazel/ Olifantshoek area does not come from the Vaal River. The water supply from the Vaal-Gamagara pipeline comes from underground water being pumped from open-cast mines at Sishen. At present plus-minus 20 million gallons of lovely, fresh water is being pumped from the mine at Sishen every day. Some of that water is already being pumped through the Vaal-Gamagara pipeline to Olifantshoek. If this source dries up one day, the sluices of the Vaal-Gamagara Scheme, which is ready to supply water, will simply have to be opened.

Furthermore I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the branch line of the Vaal-Gamagara Scheme be extended to Olifantshoek to a reservoir or catchment dam in the nearby Langeberg mountains. From this catchment dam water can, if necessary, be supplied throughout the length and breadth of the Kalahari. Consequently I ask the hon. the Minister who is in control of this matter to have the possibility of supplying water from the Vaal-Gamagara Scheme to farmers in the Kalahari investigated; even if it be for the Olifantshoek area alone, where farmers have to pump out water at great expense and sometimes lack sufficient water to develop their farms fully. I trust that my request will be considered with the same sympathy as the request of the hon. member for Griqualand East.

A short while ago the hon. member for Hillbrow pointed out that a quorum was not present in this House. I think that this testifies to very bad taste since only three members of his party were present in this House. Now not even he himself is in this House. As I said, I think this testifies to very bad taste since the hon. member was aware that a great many of the hon. members on this side of the House are discussing the Mining Vote in the Other Place. [Interjections.]

I am grateful that I am a member of this party which has a Government which the farmer can trust. The Government has understanding and sympathy for the problems which the farmers have to contend with. I want to tell hon. members today that South Africa has a Prime Minister who has sympathy for the farmer and who, together with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture will look after the farmer in South Africa. I want to quote from Hansard what the hon. the Minister in his capacity as Minister of Defence stated on 24 April 1979—

I am grateful that my Prime Minister’s first reaction to this was that we also have to look after the people who have to ensure that the people of South Africa can eat.

The South African farmer is not a food supplier to the people of South Africa only, nor will he be that in future. I can say without fear of contradiction that the farmers of South Africa are Nationalists.

Some of them.

That hon. member will see this in Swellendam and Beaufort West, despite all the stories those hon. members are going around telling.

The hon. member is making political capital out of agriculture.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South says that I am making political capital out of agriculture. However, I read in the newspaper that he is selling his farm in order to make more politics. I think that is the weakest move, as the English say, he could have made.

It is the farming community in my part of the world which still regularly attends the NP’s branch and report-back meetings, who are interested in and enter into the life and spirit of politics. They are the people who contribute generously when funds are being raised for the NP. [Interjections.]

While our country is being physically threatened today, it is the farmer’s son… [Interjections.] If that hon. member wants to proceed with his dialogue over the floor of this House, I can resume my seat so that he may continue. [Interjections.]

Order!

Those hon. members do not want to listen. They do not want to take their medicine. With the physical threat to our country, the farmer’s son is also an asset in our Defence Force which has to defend the honour and sovereignty of our fatherland. It is the farmer’s son who can still act as a tracker, ride a horse and recognize the night sounds in the veld. It is the farmer’s son who does not have to be taught how to handle a rifle because he already knows.

Do you think it is only the farmers’ sons?

It is the boys of Yeoville who can shoot.

If that hon. member came to Kuruman, we would not even waste a shell on him. [Interjections.] Let us talk about good relations. The other evening Rev. Hendrickse said on television…

Hendrik, do you support that?

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member a chance to make his speech.

He said on television that the Black child, the White child and the Coloured child do not know one another. To those who think and speak as he does, I want to say that it is on the farm where the White boy, the Coloured boy and the Black boy still get to know one another, where they still have contact with one another and where good relations are developed. I know of no town on the platteland where the school’s windows have been broken. On the platteland, however, the Black boys and the Coloured boys do not hear the stories spread by that party. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, until a short while ago we were having an enjoyable debate, but the hon. member for Kuruman has now made a bloody mess of it.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “bloody”.

I beg your pardon, Sir. I withdraw it To attack a man personally in this House because he has to sell his farm is really not necessary. The hon. member tried to make political capital out of it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow pointed out that there was not a quorum in this House. I noticed that 10 minutes ago. I agree that he should not have pointed it out.

Hit him then.

I want to say, however, that when we said that 50% of us were present, the hon. member for Kuruman behaved in a petty way by saying “50% of nothing”. That is a lot of rubbish, Mr. Chairman. At that stage only 16 members of the NP were present. That means that only 13% of the NP cares about the farmers. 17% of the PFP members and 50% of the NRP members were present. If the hon. member wants to make use of an issue to score petty political points, we can do so too.

Do you want to go on record with this gossip? [Interjections.]

It is not gossip.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I am not in the least ashamed of myself.

They are just a lot of “boerehaters”.

Yes, they are a lot of “boerehaters”.

Sir, I should like to get back to what the hon. the Minister said earlier. The hon. the Minister came with a very good suggestion. I think it is a pity that the hon. member for Heilbron is not here. I think the slogan “Make man virile and active—give him butter” is an excellent slogan, and I am not joking. It is a good suggestion. It certainly could work. This is the type of positive thinking that should come forward. We farmers always tend to take the back seat. We farmers want to do the right thing while the margarine people are slaughtering the dairy men with their advertising programmes. I think the hon. the Minister’s suggestion is a good one and I think he ought to take the idea further.

The hon. the Minister also stated that the time was not right to change the legislation relating to margarine. That is muddled thinking. The hon. the Minister does not understand what supply and demand is all about. If we have to import butter, now is the time to effect changes. If the price of butter is increased, it will stimulate more farmers to get involved in dairy production. From the viewpoint of the economic factors of supply and demand, one needs to effect the necessary changes now in order to stimulate growth in the industry. We cannot sit back and simply import butter. The problem with the Government is that it has always adopted the attitude that, if the demand is not right, one must control the supply. However, if we increase the demand, the supply will catch up. I have tried to get this across many times, but it just does not seem to sink in.

*I want to refer to anomalies in hygiene. Let us return to the question of milk. Last year I made a plea that milk should be taken in refrigerated tankers directly from the farms to the poor areas. That suggestion was shot down. It was said that the milk first had to be pasteurized. There we have another anomaly as far as hygiene is concerned. Why can the milk not be loaded onto a refrigerated tanker at a tested hygienic farm and be taken directly to poor areas? The people could come along with their own milk cans. The hon. the Minister said that that was how he grew up. I also grew up like that. It is just that I drank a little more milk than he did. It seems to me that it is the factories that are opposed to this. They want the milk to come to them first so that they can make a profit out of it. They therefore force the Minister to carry it through. I believe that it has absolutely nothing to do with health. There is talk of tuberculosis, but what about kwashiorkor? There are children who cannot afford to buy milk, but they are the very ones who need the milk. Should the child die of kwashiorkor rather than run the risk of contracting tuberculosis? Surely tuberculosis can be cured. We can try to eliminate it by inspecting the farms and ensuring that the herds are free of tuberculosis. Then the milk can be taken directly from the farm. This will lower the cost of milk immensely.

That is really very impractical.

It is not impractical at all. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. It is being done in Rhodesia. Why cannot we do it here as well? Are we too stupid? We speak about pasteurization and tuberculosis, but everywhere in this country there are farmers who bottle Jersey milk themselves daily and deliver it to the shops and cafés in the towns without, in this case, complying with strict hygiene measures. Is that milk not good enough either? I only drink that type of milk. I do not drink half-boiled milk. Now we want these factories to handle all this milk.

I now want to refer to the Sampi/Samso issue. I really do not want to get involved in this matter, but I think that the hon. the Minister cannot just leave it at that. Sampi and Samso are of the greatest importance to our country.

Whose side are you on?

I thought the hon. member would react to that. He is a Samso man. I am not a Sampi man. I am not a farmer who is interested in maize; I merely buy it I should like the maize farmer in this country to do well.

You want to make political capital out of it again, because you have no interest in that!

No, I do not make political capital out of it [Interjections.] Oh really, the hon. member is now talking nonsense. I want the hon. the Minister to appoint another committee or a commission to enable these people to put their heads together.

Why?

It is absolutely necessary that these people get together.

Why?

The reason is that one group receives the levy on maize, and that is not fair. I shall even offer to act as unpaid chairman of that committee in order to bring those two groups together.

That would result in a mess.

Anyone else can be appointed as chairman, but it has to be done.

That would result in a mess.

It might be a mess, but if I were the chairman, I would suggest in the first place that that levy should not be paid out until the two groups get together and reach a meaningful agreement.

My sixth point concerns the price of meat and the cattle farmers.

You are a Jack of all trades.

I am not a Jack of all trades. I am a cattle farmer, but I am concerned about all the farmers. A minimum increase in the price of meat is now urgently required. We can wait no longer. I think, however, that such an adjustment should be made in two stages, because we cannot hit the consumer with one large increase. The housewife should get used to gradual price increases. I suggest the following new meat prices: Super grade, 120c per kg; prime grade, 115c per kg; first grade, 110c per kg; second grade, 100c per kg; third grade, 80c per kg and fourth grade, 70c per kg. However, it must be done now. Later on we can take another step further. One large price increase within two or three months, however, will hit the consumer too hard and the newspapers will say once again that the meat prices have been increased so enormously that we can no longer afford it All kinds of stories aimed at the cattle farmer will then do the rounds.

I want to suggest further that that increase should include a levy of 2% and that the proceeds from that should be used for promotion, marketing and advertising purposes. I think that is vitally necessary. The farmers of Natal suggested this at a congress and it was accepted. They ask the Minister that a levy of 2% be introduced on every head of cattle slaughtered in South Africa, a levy which can then be used for the promotion, marketing and the distribution of meat. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South started by launching a scathing attack on the hon. member for Kuruman concerning his statement that it was undesirable for appeal for a quorum.

I agreed with it.

I want to say to the hon. member that while he was speaking, a total of six—an hon. member of the Opposition has just entered the House—Opposition members were present.

Five of them were members of the NRP.

No, four.

That is nonsense.

There are only four of them here.

Andrew Pyper was here as well. [Interjections.]

We should take care not to start working out percentages. At the moment there is a Standing Committee at work in the Other Place and the hon. member knows it. We should take care not to start playing with percentages and not to get angry when this is mentioned, because there are many of our members who have to be in the Other Place.

Are our members not there as well?

Only one of your members is there.

I should like to start by expressing thanks… [Interjections.] Sir, there is such a debate in progress that I cannot hear myself speak. I should like to convey my gratitude to those hon. members who addressed words of praise to me today. This is the first time since my appointment that I am participating in a debate on a Vote. I want to convey a special word of gratitude to my Minister. He said that I was a refined person. Sir, I do not know about that. However, I want to thank him for that. To work for a Minister such as Hendrik Schoeman is pure enjoyment. The way he works is infectious. Again today, when he rose to speak here, I was impressed by the infectious way this man deals with his work. I therefore do not regard it as a duty but as sheer pleasure to work with him and to be his friend.

Remarks have been made about keeping the problems of agriculture out of politics. I agree with that 100%. There are two hon. members who made special mention of this, i.e. the hon. member for Barberton and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. Twice during the past week I was in the constituency of Beaufort West. On Saturday night I was in Victoria West and last night I was in Vosburg. I want to say to hon. members, and I say this with great piety, that I was shocked to hear there how agriculture is being dragged into the politics of Beaufort West at a time when people there are in dire straits. If, for example, I think of Williston, the south of Fraserburg, a part of Merweville and a part of Prince Albert, and in what great distress people find themselves there and that this distress is being exploited for political gain, I cannot agree with that. I agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South in this regard. I should like to appeal to hon. members. Since these people are in great distress at the moment and since we are trying to fight an election in an honourable manner, let them convey to their leaders there and especially to their candidates, the message that they should not exploit the distress of people for political gain. I believe that this is really a display of bad taste.

I should like to react to a few speeches made here with regard to the department I control, i.e. Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. I want to start by associating myself with the hon. the Minister with regard to the Steyn Committee of Inquiry into Remote Rural Areas. I just want to request that we avoid speaking about the population of the border area. I think we should rather speak about an inquiry into remote areas. I am afraid that one will create a psychosis by suddenly introducing measures relating to the border areas alone. To a certain extent these areas are what is at issue, but the issue is also, and primarily, the economic position of the farmers in the remote areas. As far as I am concerned, these are all the areas situated far from markets. We are already acquainted with the problems. Therefore I only want to ask that since we have this inquiry, we should speak about remote rural areas.

I should like to pay tribute to Mr. Steyn and his committee today. I think they have come up with a report in record time, a report which to my mind is a vigorous one which can be implemented. The hon. the Minister will probably elaborate on this on Monday. I have read some of the recommendations contained in the report and I think that they are excellent recommendations. I believe that this committee did a very good job in the short period of time at its disposal.

The hon. member for Losberg is not present at the moment. He expressed appreciation for the boards of the Land Bank and Agricultural Credit. I should like to associate myself with his remarks. I want to speak in particular about the Agricultural Credit Board. These people have an unenviable task. It is not easy to pass judgment on people who have financial problems. It is not easy, because sometimes sympathy can cause one to lose one’s objectivity. It is therefore not an easy task, and I should like to associate myself with him by paying tribute to those people for the important task they are performing. In the months and years that lie ahead a major task still awaits them. I sometimes sit with them in Pretoria. Those people start work just after 07h00. I see them arrive, because I am also one of those people who believe in work. From 07h00 until heaven knows what time in the afternoon they are hard at work in their offices. I know it, because I see them. I want to convey my appreciation to them for this.

It is true that sometimes we have problems with security as far as these applications are concerned. When a person has financial problems, it is natural that he may have problems with security. For that reason he approaches the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. It is because he is unable to obtain assistance from other financial institutions. In this country we have a total imbalance between the market value and the agricultural value of land. There are many good reasons for this. However, it creates enormous problems for us when it comes to the handling of applications. The fact that the market value of land has become totally divorced from the agricultural value creates enormous problems for us. Perhaps it is again time for us to conduct an in-depth investigation into our valuations. When I say this I am not referring to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure alone, but also to the Land Bank. I think the time has come for us to take a close look at the norm of valuations with regard to these two institutions. I do not want us ever to be in the position where we have to use public funds to bale out people who have acted irresponsibly with regard to purchases.

For months now we have had a scandal concerning the expenditure of public funds. I want to make it clear that I will do everything in my power—and I believe that goes for the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure too—to see to it that when public funds, taxpayers’ money, is spent, it is done in such a way that people will not be able to say later on that public funds were spent irregularly. Therefore, every time we grant loans, we will have to guard against this and not do it unless adequate security is offered. There must be security, and we must be very careful not to make representations on behalf of people when we are perfectly well aware that they do not have adequate security for the granting of a loan. We will have to maintain a balance. As I indicated a while ago, the market value of land is becoming to totally divorced from the agricultural value. Therefore we shall have to maintain a balance at all times with regard to these matters.

It is true that land in South Africa is decreasing. It is not increasing. There is a hunger for land. It is natural for the South African to have a hunger for land. It is also true that the market value of land has perhaps increased out of all proportion. These are the things we shall have to look at.

I should also like to associate myself with the hon. member for Marico. He made a plea to all financial institutions in our country to assist the Government yet again with regard to the outlying rural areas. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we are very grateful for the opportunity to be able to discuss the problems of the farmers in South Africa in such a calm and sober manner today. I feel much better today after listening to the contribution which each hon. speaker made so openly here. Hon. members spoke with open minds, stated problems and sought solutions. This was the case with hon. members of all parties represented in this House. I found it very encouraging that the hon. the Prime Minister listened to this debate for four hours today. I appreciate the fact that he also realizes that agriculture is experiencing problems and that he is prepared to throw in his weight together with that of the Cabinet in order to help the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and his Deputy Minister to find solutions for these problems. I was particularly encouraged after listening to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and realizing that he spoke openly about the problems being experienced by the farmers and that he admits that such problems do exist. I also wish to express my gratitude to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture who has just spoken, for the open door and the open mind he maintains as regards agriculture. I recently had a discussion with him concerning the problems of certain individuals, and he is willing to give of his time and attention even for individuals.

I should also like to refer to an incident which elicited a strong reaction from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I have been impressed throughout by the very good attendance which this debate has enjoyed all day. Perhaps there was a slackness for a few moments here in the House, but to my mind this should be ascribed to the longer hours of sitting on Fridays and also to the fact that a Standing Committee is sitting in the Other Place. I hope and trust that the hon. member did not intend that the situation should be exploited by him and by the Press by pretending that there has been a lack of interest in the agricultural debate today. To my mind the contrary is true, for the interest in this debate has been very strong.

I listened with attention to the speeches of the hon. members for Marico, Barberton, Eshowe and Vryburg. They were specifically concerned with the problems being experienced by the large-scale cattle farmers of South Africa. In my constituency various types of farming activity take place. There are, inter alia, cattle farmers, maize farmers, timber farmers, cotton farmers, sugar farmers and vegetable farmers. In the light of what hon. members have referred here today, I feel I must tell the House that all these branches of farming are experiencing certain problems to which attention should be given. Our stock farmers or the distant border farmers are, however, experiencing specific problems, and today I wish to refer in particular to the problems being experienced by the farmers in my constituency, where northern Natal borders on Mozambique and Swaziland. Due to the low rainfall in this bushveld area, they are exclusively dependent on extensive cattle farming for an income. It is well known that economic bottlenecks have occurred in agriculture and hon. members referred to this today. These farmers did not complain, but tried to find solutions themselves to the pressure which the economic situation was exerting on them. In the first place, they tried to find another source of income. They started uprooting trees and started raising cotton in the dry land manner on a large scale. The cotton production became an increasing part of their income as the profitability of the cattle farming declined. These farmers fared fairly well, but nevertheless much capital was necessary to create this other source of income for themselves. Nevertheless they managed to do it, but, unfortunately, the worst drought for the past 25 years is being experienced in that area this year. This drought has landed those farmers in serious difficulties. These cattle and cotton farmers are saddled with serious financial problems today. One now finds the situation that they are already looking for a solution and a possible new source of income. The cattle and cotton farmers in that area of my constituency are queuing up at the mines in northern Natal today to seek employment. It is not that they wish to run away from their farms, but merely because they are trying to supplement their income. They are even willing to work in a mine during the week and only see to their farms over weekends. In cases where their farms are situated closer to the mines, they commute from their farms to the mines. These people are even prepared to leave their wives alone on the farms in their search for solutions to their own problems.

I wish to say that according to the agricultural experts, the Magut area in northern Natal is the best area for cattle farming in South Africa and some of the people in that area, among others, are the people who are in trouble. There are problems in the meat industry, but I do not wish to elaborate on that now. These cattle and cotton farmers are not being financed by a co-operative: a private company or the ginning mills are supplying them with money for their crops. All requirements, including seed, fertilizer and spray are being supplied to them. Those farmers do not have a crop this year, and these private companies now want their money, plus the interest on it. I do not blame them, for perhaps they do not have the capital to finance these people a second time. These farmers now come to me with their pleas and maintain they are really in trouble. They are very grateful to the hon. the Minister who assisted their colleagues in the agricultural and maize industries by way of the co-operative movement. The maize farmers who have had a bad crop, can be assisted by the co-operatives for a period of time. But these farmers cannot depend on the assistance of a co-operative. They are now asking me whether the Government cannot help them too and whether the hon. the Minister of Agriculture could not please give attention to their problem. That debt has to be paid or they will not be able to continue. If they do not pay the money, they will have to move, for they will not be helped another time to sow a crop for the coming year.

We shall have to suggest solutions. In northern Natal there is great activity in the mining sector and the purchasing power has increased tremendously. A while ago two people asked me whether I could not see to it that more butchers’ licences are issued to the local area. The one told me that in this rural area, which is not a controlled area and which has made rapid progress, a butcher’s licence is perhaps more sought after than a liquor licence at the moment. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would perhaps pay attention to this so that in these areas, where exceptional growth is taking place, there will be more competition in the retail trade as far as butcheries are concerned, in this way, these farmers who have been afflicted by drought for years and who cannot market their cattle, may be afforded relief so that they can compete for the best prices on the local market. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vryheid must excuse me if I do not react to what he said. I found what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture referred to very interesting and I should like to elaborate on the few points he mentioned. The problem he outlined is that it is at present very difficult to determine the value of agricultural land. Over the past few years market values have increased tremendously and it is now often difficult to determine what the true agricultural value of the land is, and this must be done before facilities and funds can be advanced to these applicants. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether, if this is still the case, it is necessary that the value of land evaluated by an appraiser should remain a closed book to the farmer himself. Is the farmer never allowed to know what the value of his land, as determined in this way, is? It seems to me that if a person who applied might begin to doubt whether he was treated fairly. He might regard his land as much more valuable than the actual agricultural value, and thus a certain degree of dissatisfaction might develop. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if it would do any harm for the farmer to know what the value of his land is. I want to take the matter further and say that if the farmer knew what the value of his land is, it would help him with the planning of the farming activities on his farm, because he would know what he was starting out with, what his capital investment was and he would be able to calculate what he should get out of the farm. I raised this question last year during the agricultural debate and I want to stress once again this year that all farmers who receive financial aid from the State or the Land Bank have to submit a report at least once a year to indicate to what extent they progressed with their farming during that year. This will be advantageous to the fanner because it will compel him to work more systematically and—if he has not done it before—to introduce a bookkeeping system for his farming. If the farmer cannot do this—and there are many farmers who are not trained in this field—it will compel him to look a little more closely at cost calculations, etc. This will be to the advantage of the farmer himself, the community as a whole and the institutions who advance the money.

The next point I want to discuss is the problem which the vegetable growers are saddled with. I discussed this problem last year, too, and gave a lot of attention to it during the parliamentary recess. The problem of the vegetable grower, especially in the Western Cape, is basically that he can produce much more than the market can handle. When he sends his produce to the market by truck, the farmer loses control of his product. His product then enters the hands of the market agent, and then the hands of the wholesaler, who in turn sells the product to the retailer. It is true, as the hon. the Minister also indicated, that the retailer who sells the product to the housewife, sells a small amount of vegetables daily and that the profit margin at which he operates is fairly small. From the sale of vegetables alone the retailer will definitely not be able to make a living, but I believe that people who push up the vegetable prices are the other middlemen in the vegetable distribution industry. In this regard I refer to the wholesaler in particular. The wholesaler buys vegetables in bulk and can force down prices at the market. He can even co-operate with his friends and colleagues to limit the price they pay for vegetables and this can cause them to make an unreasonably large profit. I wonder whether this link in the chain is really necessary and whether something cannot be done to eliminate that link in the chain.

I now want to refer to the role of the agent in this regard. I want to be a little more careful today than I was last year when I discussed the role of the agent. [Interjections.] I am prepared to admit that I made a mistake. Last year I claimed that the agents played no role or a very minor role in the fresh vegetable market. Afterwards I did my duty and visited some of the people in order to get to know them. Today I believe that they do in fact have a function, but that in spite of the service they do render, they could render a much greater service. I believe that it is the duty not only of these agents to inform the farmer about the time when a certain type of vegetable or fruit should be on the market, but that they should also help ensure that that product reaches the retailer as soon and as cheaply possible after the farmer has received his price. The agent should try to ensure that the wholesaler pays the highest possible price for the product. This can only happen if the wholesalers compete with one another in this regard. He should also do his best to ensure that wholesalers do not co-operate to keep prices low. This goes not only for the Epping market here in Cape Town, but also for the other markets, and the Johannesburg market in particular. I believe that this situation should be examined.

Furthermore, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would have any objection if farmers in the vegetable and fresh fruit industry got together and arranged to make their products available to the housewife themselves. I do not want to go into the finer details of how they are to do this and whether it is practicable. All I want to know is whether the hon. the Minister will have any objection if these farmers could think of a way of selling their produce directly to the housewife. I should like to have a reply from the hon. the Minister in this regard.

I now want to turn to the maize industry. Earlier this year I argued that there were certain marginal areas where maize should probably not be produced, because those areas are not suited to it. I hoped that the hon. member for Carletonville would participate in this debate before me today, because he…

Order! Unfortunately the hon. member’s time has expired. I should like to save him from the maize farmers.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pity that you were unable to allow the hon. member for Wynberg some injury time, because I should have liked to hear what he wanted to say in this regard. However, the hon. member for Wynberg must pardon me for not reacting to the specific subjects with which he has just dealt, because there are quite a few other aspects I wish to raise.

In the first place I wish to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on his first performance in that capacity in this Vote. We entertain high hopes for him and from his first performance it is obvious that he is going to live up to them.

As a maize farmer I want to avail myself of this opportunity today to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the good maize price he was able to negotiate for us. Moreover, I think it is only fair that I should record our appreciation for his contribution in effecting this price for us. I firmly believe that the maize farmers will be satisfied with the price they have obtained. I must add, too, that we are grateful for the 75% arrear costs included in this year’s price. I assume that we shall be able to argue the remaining 25% next year.

By way of introduction I wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware—we as Members of Parliament are very much aware of this—of the service rendered to him by his private secretariat, by Mr. Paul Nel and Mr. Steve van Blommestein to mention them by name, as well as by his other officials. We wish to thank them personally, because we know of the hours they put in, and we also thank them for the special service they are rendering not only to him, but also to us as Members of Parliament.

Hear, hear!

We have identified many of the problems today, but not many solutions have been offered. Many hon. members dealt with certain aspects and I just want to react briefly to a few of them. I am sorry that I was not here when the hon. member for Mooi River spoke. I was in the Other Place to discuss another Vote, but I understand that he dealt with the price increases of maize which become effective immediately and of the resultant profits, made either by commerce or by the processors of maize. The Maize Board has a scheme in terms of which it makes the new prices applicable immediately so as to eliminate speculation during the process of changing-over from the old price to the new price, something which could happen if the changeover were to take place over a period of time. But it also has a system in terms of which it is possible, in respect of the stocks of millers, to ascertain on the basis of calculation and formula exactly how much they have in stock, which means that the new price is immediately applicable to the stocks of unground maize in their possession. The benefit derived from the higher price goes to the Stabilization Fund and the entire industry benefits by it. In respect of commerce specifically, it is impossible for the board to ascertain exactly from each smaller dealer what he has in stock, and the new price is accordingly not made applicable to existing stock in the possession of dealers. The quantities of maize involved are also relatively small.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South dealt, inter alia, with Samso and Sampi. I think it is essential to effect unanimity in the maize industry, and in my opinion the hon. the Minister has proved clearly even at this stage that this is what he envisages. However, he cannot grab people by their throats and bring them together if they do not want to come together. We thank him very much for what he has done.

I think I should try to deal with the problems in three categories. In the first place there are price adjustments as a factor for eliminating this unbalanced situation. The second aspect is the marketing and financing problems involved, and the third is, to use the designation given to this by the hon. member for Malmesbury, agricultural marketing promotion. One may call these anti-inflationary measures, or one may simply call them subsidizing. I do not think one has one single solution to this complex problem. There are a number of factors one has to correlate, and on the basis of those factors one has to try and solve the problem as a whole.

Now I want to say a few words about price adjustments. We are able to adjust the prices of products as we are able to ascertain the production costs of those products, but if the price is adjusted to the level where the consumer does not want to buy the product, then it is not to the benefit of the producer. That is point No. 1. Point No. 2 is that as soon as the prices have been adjusted at a certain level and there are rival products, the less expensive product is preferred. That is the point mentioned by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South with regard to the sale of milk to the Railways, or the substitution of another product for milk. If one product is cheaper than the other and tenders are invited, the least expensive one is accepted. For that reason it is essential not to price oneself out of the market.

When it is the same product, yes, but what is involved here is chemical creamers.

That is the case when it is the same product. However, I am dealing with the principle. If the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South wants to argue with me by maintaining that we can obtain an absolutely high price for agricultural products and that people have to buy them regardless of all other factors, I want to tell the hon. member that this is one of the factors which plays a role and which consequently has to be taken into account. I think one has to take this into account in any marketing situation. Another factor is that as soon as one deals with the question of export, as in the case of maize, one finds that there is a certain domestic price level. We have to export, but because of a variety of factors on the overseas market, factors such as export costs, price trends on the overseas market, aids provided by overseas Governments and threshold prices made applicably by the EEC, it becomes impossible to market maize on a cost basis or a profitable basis there. On these grounds levies are charged and that results in a reduction of the net price of the product as far as the producer is concerned. This has the effect of giving the producer a low net realization. On those grounds I basically agree with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture that price adjustments are essential.

However, one cannot achieve one’s ultimate objective by means of price adjustments alone and without taking other factors into account as well. That is why, with regard to maize, there was an arrear cost calculation of 25% this year which was not taken into account in this price, perhaps on the grounds of sound arguments which the hon. the Minister had. Even if we had adjusted the price, it would have created other problems. I believe that in respect of that difference one should bring the other factors into play, for example, agricultural production promotion schemes, anti-inflationary measures, etc. However, I do not believe that the example quoted by the hon. the Minister in respect of the total subsidies of R1 000 million or the inclusion of the costs of the increase that has taken place in the production inputs, is altogether justified, because one has to take only the difference between the costs calculated in the price. On that basis, one can argue whether or not it justifies a subsidy. That is just another point.

As far as marketing and financing solutions are concerned, I think there are a few anomalies. In a previous debate I stated that the difference between the interest earnings of 6% on capital investments in agriculture as against the general financing costs of approximately 10% to 13% could not continue to exist, unless one could compensate for this in some way. Steps will have to be taken so as to ensure that financing for farming is brought more into line with interest earnings. Either prices have to be adjusted, or other measures have to be considered.

I wish to mention another aspect, and that concerns existing marketing promotion anomalies. The existing export promotion benefits for commerce are not applicable to the agricultural sector. Another hon. member raised this matter before. I wish to quote maize as an example. The individual maize farmer cannot export his maize, because he is not in a position to do so. Furthermore, legislation does not allow him to do so. The Maize Board cannot export maize either, owing to other marketing aspects which play a role. It is now being exported by commerce, and because the farmer does not export his maize himself, he cannot obtain the export concessions applicable to the other sectors in the economy. I think this is something that should be rectified by the hon. the Minister of Finance so that the agricultural sector may receive the same benefits, due regard being had to the problems involved.

Another aspect I wish to mention pursuant to what was said by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, relates to transfer duty. In this respect there is an anomaly. As far as Government stock is concerned, transfer costs or transfer duty varied from 1% to 1,5% and at one stage it was even 0,5% of the total transferable value of the stock. As far as the transfer of land is concerned, other principles apply. If a body corporate or a company takes transfer of land, 5% has to be paid as transfer duty on the first R20 000 and also on the remaining amount When a natural person takes transfer of land, 1% has to be paid on the first R20 000 and on the balance remaining after the deduction of the amount of R20 000, 3% has to be paid as transfer duty. The value of R20 000 is so low in the agricultural sector at present that one can no longer buy an economic unit for an amount of R20 000. I think these are factors which ought to be taken into account in future and which should be brought into line with the transfer of stock. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the standardized agricultural diploma courses offered over a period of two years at the agricultural colleges at present, covers all the most important basic aspects of farming, both as regards theory and practice. As far as these two-year courses are concerned, every agricultural college specializes in the agricultural industry that is peculiar to its region or area. At all colleges basic lectures are offered in animal husbandry, whether small stock or large stock, field control, soil conservation, and agronomy.

As far as the course on animal husbandry is concerned, at least 20 general stock diseases are dealt with. In addition, the students receive practical demonstrations in management practices which include, inter alia, the Mules operation, elementary postmortems and the despatch of organ and tissue samples. In connection with the field control course, basic botany and plant ecology are dealt with. The identification of the most important varieties of plants and of invader plants also receive the necessary attention. As far as agronomy is concerned, attention is devoted, inter alia, to weeds in lands and the combating thereof by cultivation or by means of herbicides.

After completion of the two-year courses to which I have referred, the student consequently has a thorough training in the most important aspects of farming. He has a very sound background knowledge. It is clear that these courses lay a foundation that lends itself to further specialization in various fields. In this regard I am thinking, for example, of specialization in the field such as weeds, animal health and farm planning, directions in respect of which a third-year course can be added to this two-year course. Consequently I want to request the hon. the Minister to investigate the possibility of introducing a third-year specialist course as a matter of urgency.

I know that at present the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is negotiating for the recognition of the diploma courses to which I have referred as the so-called M+2 courses, in other words, matric plus two years’ training. If the Department of National Education—and I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of National Education is present in the House—recognizes these M+2 courses, the diploma will ultimately be equivalent to a two-year course at a technical college. Such recognition will mean a great deal to a student. It will also bestow on him the financial benefits already being enjoyed by his counterpart who studied at the technical college. With the recognition of this diploma course as an M+2 course, the way will be clear for a third-year specialist course. If such a third-year course is introduced, it will afford enhanced opportunities to students and it will also produce more manpower to serve the agricultural industry more effectively.

At the moment there is no question of specialized courses being introduced. I have raised this matter in the past, but without success. However, I do believe that the hon. the Minister is listening very attentively to me today and that he will consider rendering assistance in this regard.

In the case of certain officials, there are indeed specialized courses at the technical section of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, but these courses are normally offered as in-service training courses, or otherwise the people obtain training at the technical colleges. The courses normally last for 18 months and the in-service training also lasts 18 months. Consequently it takes three years after matric before such an officer is fully qualified. This type of training applies to technicians who have passed mathematics at matric level. However, there is no formal training for stock inspectors or weed inspectors, for example. The training of these people takes place by way of in-service training and/or brief courses offered by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services from time to time to fulfil its own needs.

There is a real and pressing shortage of stock inspectors, weed inspectors and biological officers. Because of the high and precise requirements concerning technical advice these days, there is no room for poorly trained advisers in our country any longer.

Grave concern is being expressed by the authorities and by the farming sector on the weed position in South Africa today. Weeds such as jointed cactus, nasella tussock and all the others that have got out of hand, can simply not be controlled with the manpower for which provision is made at present.

Now I wish to refer to the basic salary paid to a weed inspector at present. With the new adjustments, he starts with a salary of R190 per month. Until recently his basic commencing salary was R151 per month. If he remains in the service for 15 years, his maximum salary can be R412 per month. That is the salary the department is compelled to pay him.

But exceedingly high demands are made on a weed inspector. He has to have a sound knowledge of a very large variety of weeds. He has to be able to identify weeds, know the legal aspects, be able to work with chemical herbicides, know the methods of combating those weeds, appear in court on behalf of the State from time to time, for example, and compile records, etc. In this case, salary scales and training have not kept abreast of the higher demands being made. Because of the specialized nature of weed inspection, it is clear that the addition of an extra year to the diploma course does offer a solution.

The same holds good for the stock inspectors and the biological officers. The biological officers are charged with doing extension work and also have administrative and planning duties. With a more intensive service to farmers and with follow-up actions one can strengthen the hands of the technical extension officer. This well-trained biological officer with three years’ training behind him, can give the extension officer a great deal of support in the field.

With the possibility of creating full-fledged educational sections at agricultural colleges within the foreseeable future, the possibility of offering specialized training is increased. To a larger extent, use can be made of the existing facilities. With the establishment of the agricultural education sections at agricultural colleges, the possibility of specialization is vastly increased. The preparing of curricula for such a course presents no problem; the department can do that very easily. I want to add that because the department itself is the best judge of its training requirements, it is also best able to train its own field officers.

With this short plea I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is possible for him—and I trust that this will indeed be the case—to have these specialist courses introduced. I believe that the first of these courses will be introduced at the Grootfontein Agricultural College at Middelburg as soon as next year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.