Order! In terms of Standing Order No 14, I have to inform this House that Mr Speaker is unavoidably absent.

Mr Speaker, I move:

1. (1) inform the outside world of the spectacular progress being made in South Africa; and
2. (2) make the people of all communities in this country aware of the growing threat against the Republic of South Africa and of the necessity of forming a united front.

Before I come to the motivation for this motion, I should very much like to make a friendly appeal to the Opposition that we conduct this debate at a high national level seeing that it concerns the image of South Africa. Let us make this a constructive debate which will be worthy of and to the benefit of our country.

South Africa is on the move. South Africa is entering a new, exciting era, an era of new initiatives, the likes of which we have never experienced in this country of ours before. These initiatives are the result of a dynamic process of reform, of adjustment and renewal tackled by the Government on a wide front, and which is now beginning to bear its first fruits. We are indeed on the move with a phalanx of imaginative initiatives.

I should very much like to touch on a few of these initiatives. We have reached the eve of the implementation of a whole new political classification, a dispensation that will pluck us out of the dead-end streets in which our country has been trapped for so long. We have begun with peace initiatives in Southern Africa which have caused a stir in Africa and which are reverberating throughout the whole world. For the first time these initiatives are opening up truly new vistas for peace and prosperity on this continent. Even Opposition members of this House are so optimistic about this that they have said in a television interview that international breakthroughs are being made.

Let us look at the facts before us. We are in the process of achieving important diplomatic successes on the international scene. This looks like a sound beginning, one which gives hope for the future. We must guard against exaggerated optimism, however. We were able to make this progress because South Africa is strong both economically and militarily, because we have a strong Government and because South Africa has proved that it can survive boycotts.

The signing of the non-aggression pact between South Africa and Mozambique next Friday is of the utmost significance to Southern Africa. One can only hope that it will be the beginning, the reactor, of further pacts of this nature on this subcontinent. With its initiatives our Government is letting a new, friendlier image of our country be revealed, which will make us more acceptable to foreign countries and more acceptable to Southern Africa in particular. Hence the talks we were able to conduct with Mozambique and Angola.

When one travels abroad one finds that the result of the referendum and the accompanying reform campaigns, as well as the peace efforts, have had an exceptionally positive effect there.

Does that apply to Australia as well?

The hon member must just listen attentively; he will get all the facts.

South Africa is being seen in a new light by many influential people from abroad. The hands of our friends in the Western World and elsewhere have undoubtedly been strengthened by our initiatives. I may as well say it: We have more friends abroad than we realize. There are opinion-formers abroad who say quite plainly that they are more at liberty to defend South Africa than they were in the past. Sir, who do you think is our best information man abroad? It is none other than the hon the Prime Minister. Wherever one goes abroad one finds that politicians, businessmen and other opinion-formers are aware of the initiatives of the hon the Prime Minister. So many of them value this highly and want to know more about it. They drag the information out of one in conversation in order to find out everything about it. These people welcome the reforms in South Africa because they would like to see us back in the Olympic Games and in the highest Council chambers of nations.

What we are concerned about here, however, is that the hon the Prime Minister is not being fully supported by the official Opposition in South Africa. If one traces the footsteps of the official Opposition overseas, one sometimes picks up negative sounds from them concerning political reform in South Africa. The official Opposition could assist us tremendously with this because it increases our credibility when they support us abroad. Even though they disagree with us on certain aspects—it is understandable that they will not agree with us on everything—in the interests of South Africa they should really be more honest with people overseas and tell them how essential and important reform in South Africa is. Why should they create doubt in the minds of our friends overseas? I want to appeal to political leaders of all parties and of all communities of different races in this country to be positive and not to say or do anything that can play into the hands of our enemies at this time when we are making sound progress at international level. I think that even the CP agrees with that. [Interjections.] Enough has been said in the past to ruin our country’s image abroad. [Interjections.] Could the hon member for Langlaagte just calm down a little for a change.?

When one looks at our foreign information services and pages through all the in-depth reports drawn up by the information officers, one realizes what a mammoth task these people are performing for South Africa overseas. They sacrifice a great deal for South Africa, and we appreciate it. It is not so easy to go and live in a strange country whilst one’s wife and children remain behind here in South Africa. It is not so easy to work there for South Africa from morning till night. It requires a great deal of sacrifice. After the unsavoury Rhoodie episode our information officers have succeeded in restoring confidence in South Africa to a large extent. They are holding the fort for South Africa in the front lines. These people have an enormous task, which they are carrying out extremely well. They by no means have an easy task.

Although a better climate for South Africa can be observed here and there, our enemies overseas have not capitulated. The onslaught on South Africa has not disappeared overnight, as some people believe. It has always been our experience that our enemies hit back harder when we achieve success, and we must be mindful of that. We cannot underestimate the dangers threatening South Africa, but we must continue to plan and implement counter-offensives. We cannot sit back now that we have achieved success.

It is true that anti-South African organizations have shot up like mushrooms overseas and they are being supported with money from all over the world, which they then use against us. Our information officers are often faced with fanatical, militant groups abroad, as well as domestically. The UN and its many bedmates, such as the World Council of Churches, about which we conducted a debate in this House recently, are among the hostile groups abroad. International communism is making its onslaught on our borders. There is the Anti-apartheid Movement which is very active in London; there is the ANC, as well as Sanroc, Swapo and the professional anti-South African activists. After all, we are all familiar with the Sam Khan’s and the Slovo’s who have fled from South Africa and who are now actively working against us abroad. If we think that these people have capitulated, we are making a very big mistake.

We have only 45 information officers who have to work in 18 countries with a total population of more than 600 million people. This small group of people, this small band, and, cannot perform this enormous task alone, but need the help of all of us. I have already indicated that these people are having success. I could quote long lists of the tremendous successes they are achieving. If only I had the time, I should like to do so. I do just want to point out that they cannot do this work alone. The time has therefore come for all of us—White, Brown and Black—to realize that everyone in South Africa can make a contribution to building up the image of our country.

Our information task must become the task of all our leaders from all race groups in this country, the task of people who often move in broader world circles; it must also become the task of our politicians, as we sit here in this House, as well as those outside this Parliament, and our businessmen, academics, industrialists and our mighty Press. After all, we have an extremely strong Press, of which we are very proud. Furthermore, it must also be the task of our dozens of sportsmen who go overseas or make contact with sportmen from overseas here in South Africa. Each of these people can assist in building up South Africa’s image.

Furthermore, it is also the task of the half a million South Africans who tour overseas every year. Each one can go there and assist in telling South Africa’s story. If need be they can take a package containing information and distribute it wherever they go when they arrive overseas. Each one can be an ambassador for South Africa. There is so much that can be done.

The Rotarians set a fine example. For example, over a period of time the Rotarians of South Africa distributed more than 3 000 information packages on South Africa amongst there members abroad. That was a fine piece of work. It has also made its mark.

I should also like to mention one specific method of disseminating information which I personally regard very highly. That is to bring as many influential leaders and opinion-formers as possible to South Africa as guests so that they can come and see for themselves and judge for themselves what is going on here. The guest programme of the Department of Foreign Affairs is one of its most successful image-building campaigns. It is having a great deal of success, since people who have visited this country are usually very positive about South Africa when they return to their own countries. Many of them come here unconverted and return converted people. Tremendous success is being achieved with this guest programme.

There is the fine example of the guest from Switzerland. After his visit to South Africa he had an advertisement published, with money from his own organization, in 80 newspapers with a readership of 2,8 million which contained five convincing reasons why South Africa should not be boycotted. After that hundreds of letters of support were received. What a fine example!

We know that many other institutions in South Africa, for example, the SA Foundation, the Tourist Corporation, the Citrus Board, as well as certain companies, also bring guests to South Africa from time to time. We want to thank these people for this. They are setting a fine example. After all, it is expensive to bring those people to South Africa, and our budget for this is small. We only have a budget of approximately R28 million. Because it is so expensive, I should like to ask the companies that make very large profits in South Africa to plough some of their profits back into this country by assisting us to bring businessmen, academics and other opinion-formers to South Africa in larger numbers. I want to ask them to concentrate on the younger people if possible, people who can be an investment for the future.

A fine example of the success that can be achieved with young people can be found in the student exchange scheme which was tackled last year by a group of South African friends of France in South Africa. French students who visited this country are bubbling over with enthusiasm for South Africa. A few of them were so impressed with this country that they want to come and settle in South Africa. One of the students who was here, Philippe Méteaut, from Toulouse in France, became so attached to Bloemfontein that he is now striving to make Bloemfontein and Toulouse twin cities. Through his instrumentality correspondence between the mayors of these two cities is already in progress.

I have already indicated that we are making progress overseas. I say that that progress is the result of the progress we have made here in this country with the implementation of NP policy. Success overseas is dependent on the visible progress that is made locally. The better and the more the Government’s policy is accepted in this country, the better it is for us abroad. That is why it is necessary for the Government’s policy to be projected strongly in this country. It is true that all the communities in our country must be thoroughly informed about the changes in our political dispensation, changes that are going to require major adjustments from all of us when they are implemented. At a time of momentous decision-making such as we are experiencing at present, every citizen of the country must be as well-informed as possible about future goals.

Let us look more critically at our internal information task. The value of information as an effective instrument to achieve our national goals will have to be valued a great deal more highly. If we want to take all the races in this country along with us on the road towards our national goals information will have to take a more central place in our national strategy. The famous American president, Abraham Lincoln, said on occasion: Keep the people informed and the country will be safe. Those words are very true. A country’s information campaign, together with its military campaign, its security campaign, its economic strategy and its education campaign constitute the total strategy for survival and success. It is therefore the task of Information to make all the people in this country more mindful of the dangers threatening us, and of the psychological onslaught on South Africa in particular, viz the full-scale propaganda onslaught intent on making our people soft and breaking down their resistance.

If we assess our internal information campaign against these criteria, we find that good work is being done domestically as well. They concentrate mainly on informing the body of leaders and the opinion-formers of all population groups concerning the new dispensation and the onslaught on South Africa, as well as other things, through personal contacts. No fewer than 21 000 public relations visits have been made over the past few years by our people in this country. Information was conveyed at more than 500 public meetings. We could continue in this vein to indicate what fine work they are doing in this regard. Many regional newspapers and magazines are being published. I have here with me an article entitled “Communism and You”, which appeared in a regional newspaper. In this way the people are being made aware of the danger of communism and the threat against South Africa. Our regional offices are doing such good work that we truly hope that more of these offices will be opened in the growing areas of our country in the near future so as to continue this work. It is a good thing that an office was opened in the George area recently. Upington, where there is a very large field lying fallow, may well be considered.

I am very grateful for the opportunity afforded me to put my case in this regard. Informed people are people who are prepared, and consequently the information task is of the utmost importance both in and outside South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I find it a pity that the message of the hon member for Bloemfontein North did not go any further than to ask everyone to put in a little more effort. One hoped to get some critical analysis of our information task so that we could perhaps debate in what way the matter could be improved, and so that we could consider the problems our information staff had to contend with overseas. In this way we could perhaps improve the whole information strategy. Instead of giving a critical analysis of the situation, the hon member basically thanked everybody for the work they were doing and said that we had to put in a little more effort.

The hon member’s view of our information task sounded rather romantic. He claimed that we were being regarded in a new light overseas and that the result of the referendum had had a particularly positive effect. If one determines what the real position is, one sees a completely different picture. Perhaps hon members heard on television last night what the representatives of the South Africa Foundation had to say about South Africa’s image abroad.

The representative in France, Mr Desmond Colbourne, told us last night that very little information about the referendum result and about the developments taking place here at the moment had appeared in the Press in France. He said that very little impression was really made on the public in France concerning any developments in this country. It is not true, therefore, that South Africa is being regarded in a new light, and that is the very problem one has to discuss.

In Germany we have the same problem. Dr Gruber—he represents the South Africa Foundation in Bonn—said on television last night that there were two schools of opinion in West Germany. The first one does see some positive development. This school is indeed of the opinion that the referendum result was a step in the right direction. However, there is a second school of thought, a very large one, which regards the progress we make here in a completely negative light. An enormous amount of work has to be done to influence that part of the population.

South Africa is not suddenly being regarded in a new light overseas. What did the representative in the USA, who also spoke on television last night have to say? He said that for many years a very negative, very critical image of South Africa had been projected in the Press, and that it would take a very long time to improve it. He said the public was still very critical, very cynical.

What is this new image South Africa has suddenly acquired overseas? We must not be too romantic about this. Our information people have much more difficulty in handling these matters overseas than is pretended by saying that overseas everything is being regarded in a new light.

†When one looks at the motion, one has to establish whether one can support it or whether one should propose an amendment. We believe that a far more fundamental look has to be taken at our information work than is done in the motion. We would be doing our information service a greater service by critically looking at their work than by backslapping and praising.

The first leg of the motion merely asks that our efforts should be increased and then thanks are expressed for everything that has been done. More is needed, and with that I shall deal in my amendment. The first leg proceeds from the assumption that the work which the department is doing at the moment is effective, and basically it suggests that it should be made slightly more effective by placing greater emphasis on the spectacular progress that has been made. The words “spectacular progress” that are used in this motion are already an indication of an approach which has no understanding of what the problem overseas is all about. Before you can actually sell “spectacular progress” to critical overseas viewers and readers, you have to make them understand what the basic problems in our society are all about. You cannot possibly try to sell “spectacular progress” in hyperbolic terms such as these unless there is a basic understanding of the complexities of our society. Before we, therefore, reach the “spectacular progress” stage in our information work, more has to be done to sell and to create an understanding for the complexities in our society. We cannot possibly agree with the approach contained in the first leg of the motion.

If one looks at the second leg, namely the request that the public and other bodies be involved in a campaign to promote a united front against the growing threat against South Africa, it is my view that if one asks a Government department or the State to initiate such a drive, it leaves the public and the business world wide open to a one-sided Propaganda campaign by the State. I believe that the way the motion is framed actually encourages the department to do that. Fortunately the hon member did not expand too much on the total onslaught theory, nor did he indicate to us or try to persuade us that there is suddenly that much more of a threat than there was a few years ago.

If one accepts this motion, one gives the department the authority to define the threat the way it wants to, and one gives the State the authority to use its resources to push that definition of the threat down the throats of people. I think that once you do that, you are on dangerous ground. Of course there are threats against the country. The disinvestment programme in the United States is a good example. However, we do have a relatively free Press. We are informed by the Press what the threats are, and through that medium and through Parliament and debate we can keep our population informed as to what the threat is. To do so through a State department which defines the threats according to its own programmes and priorities, is dangerous. Merely a look at yesterday’s Natal Mercury, gives us a clear indication of the threat of disinvestment in an article under the heading “Plan for massive disposal of US investment in South Africa”. The article states, inter alia:

We can inform ourselves and we are being informed about the threat against South Africa in the Press in a far more objective and critical way than can possibly be done through a Government department. We can therefore not go along with the motion because of the way it is phrased.

So you say that the newspapers must define the threat and that the Government must be ignored.

I did not expect such a simplistic overstatement from that hon Deputy Minister. If we look at the information work which needs to be done overseas, I think we can divide it into two markets which have to be reached by the department. The first is the mass market, the average citizen, the average newspaper reader and average television viewer. This is always the more difficult market to reach and to influence. By and large the perception of South Africa which the average Briton, German, or American has, is formed by what he reads in the newspaper and what he sees on television. The average perception of South Africa is therefore to a large extent formed by journalists, which means to a large extent by those foreign correspondents who are based in South Africa. There are of course exceptions. Of course there are self-made South Africa experts who have hardly set foot in this country who write about South Africa. By and large the perception is influenced mainly by foreign correspondents who are based in this country.

In order to improve our image and to enable the foreign correspondents to present a more accurate, frank and fuller picture of South Africa, we should look at their needs and at ways and means by which we can improve the flow of information through them. I am aware of the hon the Deputy Minister’s attitude on this and I do accept that there have been encouraging changes in relations between the Government and foreign correspondents over the last few years. However, the hon the Deputy Minister will know that if we compare our situation with, for example, that of the United States and West Germany, tremendous difficulty is being experienced by foreign correspondents in South Africa in obtaining information from the various Government departments. His department can be taken as an example as to how it should be done. However, foreign correspondents will tell one how different it is to obtain, on a regular basis—I am not referring to the formal Press conference—frank views from Ministers and Government officials. A lot more needs to be done. That is one way by which we can improve the flow of information. That may not change the image of South Africa drastically, but it may at least result in the public overseas receiving a more objective picture of the country and having a better understanding of what our problems are.

The second market which one tries to reach overseas consists of opinion-formers and decision-makers. That is an area in which the department does a lot of work. It sends publications to them; they are invited to functions and people are brought out to South Africa. If one looks at their work, let us ask whether it can be improved. I believe it can. If one looks at some of the tactics which we use in our information work I believe there is tremendous room for improvement.

Mr Colbourne of the South Africa Foundation said last night that few politicians in France follow details about South Africa. South Africa is not much in the news. One must therefore assume that the image and understanding of South Africa in France is a very superficial one and that there is no idea about the complexity of the situation. One of the publications which the Department of Foreign Affairs finances indirectly and for which it is therefore responsible, is a publication called Courier Austral Parlementair. The most recent one I received is in respect of the second quarter of 1983. Remembering that the French have a superficial idea of South Africa and its complexities and that they are very critical, we see here how the department goes about influencing them to obtain an objective picture of South Africa. This publication—and the others are similar—gives an indication of a counter-productive effort and a waste of money. I will refer to a few headings in this publication to motivate my point of view. The first article is headed “A false and odious manoeuvre”. This contains harsh criticisms in overstated terms of the French Government’s decision to ban the rugby tour. I could criticize them as well, but is that the way to go about influencing the French to be more positively inclined towards South Africa? The second article is headed “South Africa: Destabilizer or Developer?” It refers to the accusation that we destabilize and then says:

This is not aimed at us. It is aimed at a critical audience that has been given facts about destabilization. This article merely brushes over those allegations, saying: Nonsense, we give massive aid, there is no destabilization. Take the next article, headed “A look at migrant workers in South Africa”. I quote:

Whom are we bluffing? Take a further article, headed “Comment—What a hullabaloo!”. This is aimed at Frenchmen. I quote:

Are we influencing Frenchmen in a positive way to understand our country with inflammatory, wild language and views like these? I shall give one more example—I cannot go through all the examples in this publication. There is an article headed “The Tswanas”. The subheading reads “A real paradox in Africa”. I quote:

[Interjections.] Sir, this is counter-productive and a waste of money. The Department of Foreign Affairs needs to look at this. We need to adopt a frank and self-critical approach towards our problems. We need to place priority on creating an understanding of the complexities of our problems. The approach in this document will not do that.

Let us look further at a publication we get in South Africa, the SA Digest. This publication is also widely distributed in overseas countries. I do not criticize it to the same degree as the previous publication, but in this publication we also need to be careful with the approach we adopt. The most recent copy which I received through the post is dated 24 February. On the very first page there is an essay by Martin Spring entitled “Biko, the making of a martyr from a nonentity”. I quote from the second paragraph:

How are articles like this going to assist in persuading the critical readers, to be more positive and more understanding towards South Africa? It is counter-productive. We need to be frank. We need to be self-critical. We need to put to overseas countries in an objective way the progress that has been made.

I should therefore like to move as an amendment:

1. (1) adopt a more frank and self-critical approach in their information work abroad;
2. (2) place greater emphasis on projecting the complexities of our society rather than attempting to justify the status quo; and
3. (3) guard against using the Department as the agent of the governing political party and as a disseminator of party-political propaganda.”.

The members of Parliament on the other side who have been overseas with members of the official Opposition know that, when the difficult times come, they rely on members of the official Opposition to defend their country. The criticism that the official Opposition is not doing justice to the information work in South Africa is unfounded and we reject it. When the harsh critics overseas enter the debate the NP members take the back seats and say that we, the PFP, should take over and defend the country. The hon member knows that. It was an unfair criticism of our role. We are playing a significant role in the information process, and the hon the Deputy Minister’s department knows that.

Mr Speaker, it is a pity that the hon member for Durban-Central cannot see his way clear to supporting the motion. I think that generally speaking we can agree with certain proposals the hon member made to improve the work being done. It is also true, however, that when one can sit here and make such proposals without taking the realities facing us into consideration, it is very easy to put forward such matters in these terms. For example, the hon member loses sight of such factors as available manpower and available financial means. He simply does not take that into account. He referred to overseas reporters who, according to him, should be better informed. I agree with him. Under the guidance of the hon the Deputy Minister, however, significant progress is being made in this field.

When one considers the information work being done by the department, and sees the facts as they really are, bearing in mind the circumstances under which the work is done, one cannot but be grateful for and appreciative of the work being done.

South Africa has a total of 53 overseas information posts in 18 countries, of which only 45 are filled at present. Forty-five information officers are therefore serving 18 countries with a total population of 626 million. From a purely statistical point of view this means that there are an average of 2,5 information officers per country, and each of them has to reach 34,8 million people.

There are, however, also many other factors making the task of our information officers a difficult one. One of these is the fact that in general South Africa is perceived in negative terms abroad, particularly with regard to its domestic policy. South Africa is always associated with apartheid, and to those people apartheid personifies everything which is bad, inhuman, immoral, diabolical and damnable. In a recent speech the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs referred to this state of affairs as the “verbal war” being waged against South Africa. The media, in particular, uses concepts such as “apartheid”, “discrimination”, and “racism” as deadly verbal weapons against South Africa because they elicit negative emotional reactions. These reactions are used very effectively by our media enemies because they fit in very well with the pattern of expectations that has developed abroad over many years with regard to South Africa, namely that nothing good can be expected of South Africa. That is why all negative incidents in South Africa are blazoned forth in banner headlines, whereas positive developments—good news about South Africa—are simply ignored because positive news does not fit into that pattern. [Interjections.] It is against this negative pattern of expectations that our information officers have to improve South Africa’s image abroad.

Another factor impeding our information officials in their task is the negative role that some of our own South African media representatives play in denigrating our country abroad. It is remarkable how frequently the South African media are quoted in negative action taken against the RSA abroad.

A recent example of how church organizations use the South African media in their anti-RSA campaigns was the Evangelische Kirche Deutschland’s reaction to the constitutional reform initiatives. The communiqué in which the reform proposals are attacked, without exception, consists for the most part of reports which appeared in English-language South African newspapers. I shall only mention a few of the headlines to reports used for this purpose: For example on 19 September the Citizen wrote “Catholic Church calls for referendum no”; on 12 September the Star wrote “Tutu urges churches to reject new constitution”; on 9 October the Sunday Express wrote “A new mandate for racialism”; on 9 October the Sunday Times wrote “Yes could spur Black resentment" and on 12 October the Rand Daily Mail wrote “What a yes vote means to South African Blacks”.

Then there is the obstructive role, which the hon member for Bloemfontein North also mentioned, anti-South African organizations such as the Anti-apartheid Movement, the ANC, Sanroc and others, supported by many left-wing trade unions and forming a formidable anti-South African propaganda machine.

When one takes cognizance of all these factors, one really learns for the first time to appreciate the gigantic task being performed by the small but valiant band of information officers abroad. How thoroughly and successfully this work is being done—and I hope the hon member for Durban Central will pay heed to this—is clear inter alia, from the Washington Journalism Review of October 1983. In an article entitled “Foreign Governments are Playing our Press” the effectiveness of the “lobby” by foreign Governments is discussed by the American news media. Israel, supported by approximately 5 million Jews in the USA, many of whom occupy influential posts, is considered the most effective foreign “lobby”, and the article goes on to say: “Second to the Israelis, the most visibly aggressive foreign government is South Africa." This is a feather in the caps of our people.

Another highlight of our information work in the USA is the fact that Prof Yablonky, a Professor in journalism at the University of Michigan and a recognized authority on the American news media, found that apart from the Middle East and Central America, events in Southern Africa at present constitute the most important foreign news in American newspapers. Then we have to take into consideration that in the USA there are 15 information officers for approximately 235 million people; in other words, statistically speaking, one official for every 16 million Americans.

In France the propaganda onslaught against South Africa is increasing as we in South Africa are making progress in the field of race relations. We admit this; we realize that the anti-South African action is, in particular, being encouraged by socialist-communist regimes. Nevertheless—and I should like the hon member for Durban Central to take note of this as well—we have achieved some success here, because Jeanne-Pierre Richard, the president of the French antiapartheid movement, announced recently in a radio broadcast:

That is also a feather in our cap.

When we consider our position in France, it appears that statistically speaking we have one information officer for every 18 million Frenchmen.

If we also consider statistics in connection with information activities in 1983, we cannot but say that this is an impressive story. It is not yet perfect, but without doubt major work is being done here.

That is why I believe that this information work definitely merits our thanks and appreciation. That is why our hearts also go out to those information officers and their families who, in foreign countries under trying circumstances, frequently have to make great sacrifices for the sake of their service to South Africa. Every South African, White Coloured and Black, ought to consider it a debt of honour to our information officers to strengthen their hands in their gigantic task, wherever and whenever the opportunity presents itself, by also participating in building up a positive image of South Africa.

I believe that we as politicians should also make it our earnest endeavour to facilitate their task by taking decisions here in Parliament which can place South Africa and all its people on the road to prosperity, peace and progress.

Mr Speaker, in his introductory speech the hon member for Bloemfontein North used words which I would call the new language of the NP. For example, he spoke of the “dynamic process of renewal”, “initiatives”, “new dispensation”, “breakthroughs in Africa”, “dead-end streets” …

Are you opposed to that?

Mr Speaker, the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs must really start behaving like a Deputy Minister, and not like an NP back-bencher. [Interjections.] He will have enough time to reply in a moment, and we shall speak about other aspects on another occasion—this is concerned with information; not with diplomacy. [Interjections.]

In his motion, his motion of flattery, he expressed gratitude for the “thorough” information work being done …

Do you agree?

The hon member will hear in due course. I shall speak to him. He speaks of “informing the outside world of the spectacular progress being made in South Africa”, etcetera, etcetera. The hon member knows that my party and I do not support this motion of his.

When Dr Verwoerd established the Department of Information during the sixties he had a twofold purpose, as he stated in his explanation, as I recall. On the one hand he had an internal purpose to inform all the population groups in South Africa about one another, to convey information about the Government’s future policy and to educate and prepare the peoples of that time with regard to separate development, and so on.

He also had a purpose for that department with regard to overseas countries, and that was to rectify the distorted image of South Africa by way of a purposeful campaign. It is interesting to note that the hon member for Bloemfontein North still recognizes this dual role of the present Directorate of Information, or whatever it is called. Of course, this appears in his introduction, which is already a contradiction in terms. He is grateful for thorough information work, but in the same breath he asks for the launching of an intensive information campaign, in this country as well as abroad.

Assist our Information Service.

Really, Sir, let us simply read what is written in the hon member’s motion. I do not know whether the hon member recalls how he worded his motion. Perhaps he did not draw it up himself. Inter alia, the hon member’s motion reads as follows:

To assist them.

The word "assist”, which the hon member has just used, does not appear anywhere in this motion. The hon member does not know what appears in his motion. I hope he will allow me to make my own speech now.

We have a contradiction in terms here. On the one hand he expresses gratitude, and on the other he requests the launching of an intensive information campaign both here and abroad. If he is correct in thanking them the request is unnecessary. If his request is necessary the words of thanks are a mistake. With reference to his appeal in the introduction to his speech I want to say that the CP will do nothing to harm the interests of South Africa. Similarly, it will give compliments when they are justified and deserved. However, this is its task as an Opposition party and it will not hesitate to reprimand or criticize a Minister or a department or any other goverment institution.

Let us look at the praise extolled by the hon member for Bloemfontein North in respect of the overseas campaign. What kind of language did he use? He referred to thorough information work. Whilst he was speaking here, it almost sounded as if the outside world had become euphoric about the new dispensation and the winning yes-vote. I want to ask the hon member whether it is true that the outside world is euphoric. In this debate the hon member and his Government must be compelled to take note of the realities with regard to what is going on abroad. They must be compelled to be realistic. Life is not a play. Life is not a stage on which one poses as an actor with uniforms and medals. [Interjections.] Surely there are realities in everyday life in South Africa. [Interjections.] Unfortunately the hon the colonel is not here. I should very much have liked the colonel to have been here. The hon the Minister is not present and I asked him to be here. [Interjections.] When he used television and the radio to distribute the propaganda of the NP during the referendum campaign he was full of predictions about all the wonderful things that would descend on South Africa if the yes-vote won. The outside world, the whole of Europe and the West were supposed to have rejoiced about the yes-vote. All his friends in Africa except the ANC, which telephoned the hon the Minister of Law and Order personally and said: We want a no-vote, were longingly sitting and waiting for the yes-vote.

What happened after the referendum? Sir, where was the West, the West who was waiting for the yes-vote? Where was the West when a resolution was introduced at the UN? Who brought that resolution to the UN—the countries of Africa—and what did that resolution say? The resolution condemned the new dispensation. [Interjections.] Sir, I am making my own speech. I have not yet become like members of the NP and NP Ministers who have people to write their speeches. I make my own speech. What did the hon the Minister’s newspapers write the other day?: “Reagan besig om rug op Suid-Afrika te draai.” I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister what his Minister’s position is with the “Iron Lady”. What is his position with the French? The hon the Dep uty Minister came and told the women of the NP on Friday, 2 March: “Suid-Afrika wen die isolasiestryd”. But on 3 March The Citizen said: “Canberra turns down visas for two South African politicians.” [Interjections.]

Order!

The tragedy of the matter, Sir, is that at present the climate for South Africa in the West should be more favourable than it has been in a decade. There is a conservative government in the United States; there is a conservative government in England, as well as in Germany … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon member an opportunity to make his speech.

Consequently, one can ask oneself: Why is this the case? Ultimately, we have had a receptive Western community recently. And what is South Africa’s position? One must ask oneself, and that is why I am sorry that the hon the Minister is not here: What was the Minister’s share in this process that things are not going so well for South Africa overseas? What was his attitude towards governor Reagan, as he was then, when he was still a prospective Republican candidate during the ’seventies? Did he take any notice of him then, when he was on the threshold of major events in America? What pronouncements did he make about the Americans in America at that time to win short-term publicity for himself in South Africa for the sake of his PFP campaign? [Interjections.] Of course that is the case. Why is his relationship with Mrs Thatcher not what it should be? Because a quarrel is being picked with that Government for personal, short-term political successes in South Africa. Things are being said in restaurants and other places about the English and the Americans which have greatly angered those countries. [Interjections.]

Order!

Pik for President.

Yes, Pik for President. Others interests are being harmed for the sake of Pik for President.

Sir, I could ask many more questions of this nature, and South Africa must take note of them.

What do overseas countries say about the CP?

People from abroad are very well received by the CP and we listen to them, and they listen to the CP, and I want to tell the hon member what the people from abroad say about the CP, what one speaker from abroad said about our people the other day, viz: “Your policy is more coherent than that of the NP.” [Interjections.]

The hon member used words such as “spectacular progress” and “dynamic processes”, and he used those words directly after he had spoken of the “dead-end streets” in which South Africa has found itself for many years. I assume that these are the NP dead-end streets of 1948 to 1978. I assume these are the streets of Malan, Strijdom, Verwoerd and Vorster—these are the dead-end streets in which we have found ourselves. It is funny how the language and style on that side change together with the language and style of certain personalities.

One could almost go to a bookshelf with one’s eyes closed and take out a volume of Hansard of the sessions of the past few years and one would find a speech on information made by the hon member for Bloemfontein North in a debate on a private motion introduced either by the Opposition or himself. For example, the hon member spoke about the private motion of Mr I F A de Villiers in 1976. He attacked Mr De Villiers and said (Hansard, 1976, col 1681):

It is interesting that at that time the hon member said these things to people who then said what he is saying about the old NP now. The hon member confirms that, but he does so in such a way that the microphone cannot pick it up, that those were dead-end streets, the blood-and-sweat years of Malan, Strijdom and Verwoerd, the years when the continued existence of the White man was safeguarded, the years when relations between peoples were ordered, the years of the development and extension of own group areas, the years when the Defence Force was established. There are no longer group areas. [Interjections.] Those years have now become the dead-end years.

Who says so?

The hon member for Bloemfontein North says so. [Interjections.]

Order!

This is the dead-end road, as opposed to the opposite road of dynamic processes of which the hon member was speaking.

The CP is also a dead-end street.

That was said in Soutpansberg as well.

When one assesses the information being spoken about today, one must take note of the fact that the hon the Minister is not only the Minister in charge of information; he also controls the most important State media, ie television and the radio. As the Minister of Information he is also in charge of those matters.

No; the Minister does not control them; they are controlled by the Control Board of the SABC. [Interjections.]

He has a board of NP lackeys, and he controls television through them. He has a Director-General who was one of his friends in the Department of Foreign Affairs and that Director-General is now controlling that section of his propaganda. [Interjections.]

Order! There are far too many speeches being made at present. I am making a final appeal to hon members not to all speak aloud simultaneously. The hon member for Soutpansberg may proceed.

Thank you very much, Sir. It is almost time for me to conclude, but I must just say this: Radio and television are there to do information work, and the hon the Minister is there to dissiminate information through his department. However, let us go back and look at the role of radio and television during the referendum. They did not supply information, but pure and blatant NP propaganda.

Just identify that and tell us when that happened.

I shall identify that for the hon member right now. Just before Christmas 1982, during the holiday season, there was the distorted programme in which all the editors of “yes” newspapers participated on television. This took place against a backdrop of Wagnerian décor which probably cost thousands of rands. Then there was the programme by the professors. They were unable to get the professors of Constitutional Law or the professors of National Law, so they had to use professors of Criminal Law in their programme.

The Criminal professors.

Yes, the professors of Criminal Law. There was also the exploitation of an ambassador, a public servant. Ambassador Von Schirnding was used to relate what euphoric results the yes-vote would have for South Africa in the outside world. Surely that is party-political propaganda. Those professors came up with half-truths. For example, they neglected to mention that the President’s Council would be part of the legislative dispensation, and that was never rectified. Surely that was blatant NP propaganda. What would have constituted information would have been if the Government had honestly stated: This is where I am taking you. The Government should have participated in panel discussions with all political parties. It should have said: Let us permit all political parties to participate, to comment and to state their standpoint. This never happened, however.

I could move an amendment here asking for the hon the Minister to be censured for this kind of thing, for the way in which he used television to build up his own image at the expense of his colleagues and even at the expense of his Prime Minister, at the expense of the leader in the Transvaal and the Deputy Prime Minister. One could censure him for this. I think this is the worst we have ever had in this country. There has never been another example of this.

Mr Speaker, it is really not a pleasure of a privilege to speak after the hon member for Soutpansberg. It is painful to have to speak after a speech such as the one we have just had to listen to.

The hon member almost made me feel as though I was listening to a speech in the General Assembly of the UN. I might just as well have been attending an OAU meeting. There was not a single positive note in his speech. I challenge anyone in this House to ask for a copy of the hon member’s Hansard and then quote me a single positive note from it. It containes only bitterness, frustration and antipathy towards people. His slip was definitely showing, because we know that the hon member has never been an admirer of our extremely capable Minister of Foreign Affairs. What did he try to do today. He tried to attack the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs personally. He spoke about “coherent policies”, but I want to ask him whether it was a “coherent policy” when his hon leader made that absolutely arrogant religious speech at Ellis Park on 10 October, continued with that three sixes story and said—hon members can read all about it in this morning’s newspaper—that the bomb planted near the hon the Prime Minister in Pietermaritzburg was merely a Government ploy. Is that a “coherent policy”? I maintain it is an absolute disgrace that one has a tiny Opposition party in the South African House of Assembly which is simply intent on sinking the country rather than selling it.

At this stage I want to make something very clear: We see the amendment of the hon member for Soutpansberg for what it is worth.

In some regards I want to associate myself with the hon member for Durban Central, particularly with the positive things he said in his speech. There were also many matters mentioned by the hon member for Geduld which I should like to emphasize. All this is in contradiction to what the hon member for Soutpansberg said. The hon member for Bloemfontein North moved a motion in which he asked that thanks and appreciation be expressed to the Department of Foreign Affairs for the monumental work they are doing. Every time I visit our missions abroad and converse with people there, I realize that those people are virtually trying to blow against a South-easter. This is the challenge facing them. Now there is a little Opposition party like the CP which, instead of endorsing these things and expressing thanks and appreciation, has adopted a negative attitude. Many of them have already been abroad and I followed their footsteps. They should say that we have far too few people in the field and that this Parliament should vote far more money to this department. The infrastructure of the Department of Information is kept to an absolute minimum. Basically they are travelling in a scotch cart. How can they fight the entire world with what they have at their disposal? However, one hears nothing like this from the CP. They should go and read the hon member for Geduld’s speech. Then they would have more appreciation for these things.

I want to refer to a very important aspect, namely the necessity for good liaison between the media and the Government. The hon member for Durban Central also referred to this. During the past two years tremendous progress has been made, and I want to go back a little in the history of this matter so that hon members can take cognizance of what has happened behind the scenes and what we can expect in future.

However, I first want to state that it is absolutely essential to have improved communication with the media. It is in the interests of our country because the written word remains the safest and most reliable means of communication between the Government and its subjects. It is a good thing that it was suggested today that the State has a special function in this regard. The Department of Foreign Affairs has a special function, but other State departments also have the task of bringing what they are doing to the attention of the public in South Africa and the outside world. However, there are certain conditions attached to this. The communication which should exist between the Government on the one hand and the media on the other should be unsullied. It should occur between the Government and the population and then there should be feed-back from the public to the Government. It should also occur between the general public and the various community leaders. But then one has to take certain things into account.

All three the parties involved in this information effort, namely the Government, the public and the Press, have certain obligations in this regard. In the first place the Government has to ensure that its information is effective and co-ordinated. As far as the public is concerned, they should show far more interest than is the case at present. It is unbelievable to see, in spite of all the information efforts on the part of the Press, TV, radio and other media, how little the ordinary man in the street knows about what is going on. It is a disgrace when one looks at the opinion polls which reveal the disgraceful ignorance of the public in spite of the information with which they are bombarded daily. As far as the Press is concerned, there is only one thing we ask of them, whether it is the Opposition Press or not. They should be objective in their version of what they are reporting. Today I want to say here that my impression is that in general the Press goes out of its way to be objective and positive in its reporting. I also include the other media in this.

As long ago as 1979 the Prime Minister undertook—

After that things began to happen very rapidly. In 1981 the Commission for Administration conducted a thorough investigation into the division of functions between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the other State departments. The Steyn Commission followed shortly after that, namely on 15 February 1982, and a report was tabled in the House of Assembly which was also discussed here. Then the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs stated the Government’s standpoint on that report and undertook to speed up and facilitate the communication channels between the Government and the media and the media and the public. A few months later the post of Deputy Minister charged with information affairs was created in the Department of Foreign Affairs and the present hon Deputy Minister was appointed and charged inter alia with involving himself intensely in the liaison between the Government and the media. This Deputy Minister’s task is to supplement the information activities of the various ministeries. The Deputy Minister must also co-ordinate matters by acting as a link between Cabinet members and the information service of the Department of Foreign Affairs. On 8 September 1982 the hon the Prime Minister made the very important announcement that in future the Liaison Services Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs would co-ordinate Press statements by Ministers and Government departments on current affairs. All this points to one thing, namely that there is an intense desire on the part of the Government to create a more effective communication structure between the Government on the one hand and the media on the other. This includes all the media, those that are well-disposed towards us as well as the Opposition Press.

Now there are certain prerequisites which apply for the Government in this connection. The Government says that the flow of information to the media has to be regular and effective, that there has to be balanced reporting and also that there has to be more effective co-ordination of the liaison actions of the various Government departments—this is of great importance. To sum up, therefore, the intention of the Government is: To identify the problems which exist and eliminate them; to analyse critically existing arrangements which do not function properly and to improve them; and to design an improved structure within which more effective liaison can take place. Today I want to refer to this more effective structure and I want to congratulate the Government and wish the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs everything of the best because it is in this regard that he and his predecessor, the present Minister of Education and Training, played an extremely positive and important role, and this is and will continue to be the case.

In conclusion: The basic problem therefore is that as regards its major domestic problems South Africa—we are not running away from this—has to develop a communication strategy in order to inform the population of all the various facets of the country. I am now referring to the entire population. Up to now no such communication strategy has existed. In the old Department of Information, the department which is now defunct, there was no suggestion of this.

My time has more or less expired. I want to conclude with one final remark. Recently the Commission for Administration has approved the establishment of a liaison division. The Cabinet has agreed to this. An interdepartmental liaison forum has been approved which will act as the secretariat in this connection. The hon the Deputy Minister is the chairman. In the short time it has been in existence this forum has already made tremendous progress. Four meetings have already been held. Liaison officers from all departments and provincial administrations participated. Tremendous progress has already been made in co-ordinating and structuring information and in ensuring that South Africa’s image, at home as well as abroad, is conveyed in a positive light.

Mr Speaker, I trust the hon member for Brits will not mind if I do not respond to him immediately. I will, however, come to a few points which he raised, and also to a few points raised by the hon member for Soutpansberg, later in my speech.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North is a very sincere and well-meaning person. I have no question in my mind that his intentions are of the best, but I wish that he had come to the House this morning with a better worded motion. The wording of his motion does in no way equate with the content of his introductory speech. In his speech there was a tremendous amount with which no one can argue. I would say that for 90% of the time he gave us the sort of stuff that is very sincere and in the best interests of our country and could be accepted and lauded by all hon members of this House as being a worthy contribution.

[Inaudible.]

I want to say to the hon the Deputy Minister that I agree with the hon member for Soutpansberg that he is now a Deputy Minister and that he should behave like one. [Interjections.] He will have a lot of time to make his speech later and he must therefore please behave now.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North said that success in the outside world depends on visible progress being made here. That is a tremendously significant point. Regrettably, however, it is the wording of the motion to which I must address myself here this afternoon because that is what is before us. It is the motion and the way it is worded that is the subject of the debate here. When one reads this wording one can only come to the conclusion that the motion is ill-timed, ill-conceived and very short on logic. It is ill-timed because we at this moment have reached a most delicate stage in negotiations with certain African states and others. We are poised on the brink of dramatic and far-reaching developments which are under way while we talk to each other across the floor of the House. We have reached, or we are fast approaching, the moment of extreme delicacy, the point of make or break for peace in the Southern African region. If this motion, because of the way it is worded, is perceived to be blowing our own trumpet, then I believe it is not going to contribute to our efforts in seeking peace and peaceful solutions but it will actually be counterproductive. There is no point in bragging now. There is plenty of time for tub-thumping after we have achieved our immediate aim, which should be approached, I submit, in the spirit of humility and not in a spirit of bravado.

I say, too, that this motion is ill-conceived because it seeks to inform the outside world of the spectacular progress being made in South Africa. That is the wording of the motion. “Spectacular” is a very strong adjective indeed. I agree that genuine reform is taking place, but unfortunately—we must all accept this—the pace is slower than our critics would expect. Critics are of course never satisfied with anything. Perhaps if we were trundling along at a tremendous rate our critics would say we are moving too quickly. But that is a critic; he is never satisfied with anything. The fact of the issue is, however, what the outside world is seeing at this moment. The outside world is seeing a gun pointed at the head of a detainee who is kneeling and that gun goes off. The outside world is seeing the Colin Croft incident. The outside world is seeing Lansdowne. That is what the outside world is seeing and that is what is regrettable. I believe that we have got to the stage where we must say clearly: Let us not try to kid the world but above all let us not try to kid ourselves. This is where we as South Africans do ourselves a great disservice. Let us therefore please not speak of “spectacular” progress because I do not think that adjective in any way fits the spirit of what the hon member said in his introductory remarks. Let us remember at all times that when dealing in diplomacy we should use the language of diplomacy and rather the understatement than hyperbole. It always achieves a better result.

The other term used is “a united front”. I do not think that is good terminology to use, particularly at the moment. We have one particular united front that I do not think anybody wants any part of. I am referring to the United Democratic Front, and I am sure the hon member does not envisage that. Surely, the changing attitudes towards our country that are being shown by the USA, Germany and others plus, I might add, our neighbours in Southern Africa, these changing attitudes that will become more and more supportive as our internal reform gains momentum, must make us ask ourselves: What is the “growing threat” that the hon member speaks of in his motion? How can he say that there is a growing threat in this climate of changing attitudes? Surely, this is a moment for us to be applauding a diminishing threat. That is why I say that at this moment this motion is ill-conceived—let me stress again, the wording is ill-conceived.

In regard to the logic of the motion, I join issue with the hon member for Soutpansberg and say to the hon member for Brits: Please read the words. The wording is clear. It says:

A most regrettable choice of phrase because, surely, “through information work” implies that what is being asked for is already being done. It can have no other meaning neither in English nor in Afrikaans. It can only have that meaning. “Thorough information work” implies that what is being done is fine; it is thorough. So there is no consistency, no logic in the wording. There is no real reason, I submit, on the terminology of the motion, for this motion except for what it apparently is in its substance and wording. It is an exercise in trumpet-blowing, and I want to say this, with respect: The NRP will not support an exercise in trumpet-blowing.

Mr Speaker, the speech by the hon member for Umhlanga was very interesting because of the particular perception he had of this motion. I do not share with him the view that it is essentially an exercise in trumpet-blowing. After all, substantial, dramatic progress is being made in South Africa and in Southern Africa, owing very largely to the Government’s initiative. The progress that is being made, however, does not redound only to the credit of the South African Government and its information service. It also redounds to the credit of other people involved. Today week, for example, the hon the Prime Minister and President Samora Machel will be signing the Nkomati Accord; the first non-aggression pact between South Africa and a Southern African state other than a TBVC country.

This, I admit, is a delicate operation. The other things surrounding it are delicately poised, as the hon member for Umhlanga has also pointed out. It has, however, resulted from positive, encouraging inputs by other people as well, including the Mozambique government and the Portugese government, and inasmuch as this kind of progress is being made—and it is spectacular; it is the kind of thing that one would hardly have dreamed possible a couple of weeks ago—I think it is a positive development. One should also not decry a positive motion simply for the sake of a few semantic arguments about certain adjectives which may or may not have been used in its formulation. Apart from those developments, I believe, there is other—and I also believe—spectacular progress being made.

There are the other accords in the offing with Mozambique, which, we hope, will normalize trade and tourist relationships between our two countries. There is also the tripartite agreement with Portugal in the offing with a view to the better utilization of the Cahora Bassa Dam. This does not redound only to the benefit of South Africa. It redounds too to the benefit of the whole of Southern Africa, as does this burgeoning pattern of better relationships in other Southern African countries, such as Lesotho, to quote but one example.

The Angola situation is far more complicated but the tripartite agreement reached in Lusaka has produced a working bilateral monitoring commission, which, for the first time in many, many years, has brought real hopes of resolving the perennially stubborn South West African question.

*I want to put it to the hon member for Umhlanga that considerable progress has been made within this country as well, progress which is also spectacular. As far as the referendum is concerned, I concede that this party played an important role in this, so the fact that we are making this progress redounds to his credit and that of his party as well.

But I said so. That is correct.

It means that the commencement of our new Constitution in September this year will be an accomplished fact, after the first parliamentary elections in South Africa for Coloureds and Asians. Four months ago, the first municipal elections for Blacks were held in South Africa. Hon members also know that both the Select Committee on the Constitution and another special committee are investigating ways of accommodating in a meaningful way the many aspirations of the Blacks outside the national states.

These are all spectacular, important, delicate changes. All the adjectives that have been used in this debate so far are applicable here. However, there is an inherent paradox in every changing situation. That paradox is that whereas on the one hand, it means the satisfaction of expectations, it also creates uncertainties on the other hand, which could undermine the very improvements that those changes are intended to bring about.

That is why an information exercise—one which is intensive, extensive and thorough—is required on the part of the State, specifically in order to remove these uncertainties.

The hon member for Durban Central referred to last night’s “News Focus” on television. Everyone who watched it will agree that in addition to the negative connotation to which the hon member referred, there was also a positive connotation, and that the balance that was evident from this clearly shows that the world is more receptive to meaningful information from South Africa at the moment than it was a few months or a few years ago.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Speaker, when we adjourned for lunch, I was about to say that I agreed with the general trend of an article by Mr Darryll Phillips, a leading advertising agency executive, in the Sunday Times of 4 March in which, among other things, he said:

He went on to say:

*He added that this information exercise could not be undertaken by the State alone, and once again I agree with him. Like my hon colleagues, however, I want to express my thanks for the very hard work with limited staff and limited and sometimes outdated means with which our information people abroad and at home have to sell the changing relations politics of South Africa. We all know that fewer than a handful of people in Switzerland are responsible for the preparation and distribution of publications such as South Africa Survey in several languages all over the continent of Europe.

In this country our information officers undertook 21 000 public relations visits last year. They had more than 200 interviews with opinion-formers, undertook more than 500 public appearances and produced 12 publications and eight regional newspapers in several South African indigenous White and Black languages. I think that mountains are being moved, but it is a fairly extensive operation at this stage, and in my opinion it should now be greatly intensified. I also think it is a fact that as our efforts in our relations policy at home and abroad are crowned with success, radical elements such as the Communist Party and its henchmen and fellow-travellers will greatly intensify their activities in this country.

†However, even with unlimited funds, as Mr Phillips pointed out, the State cannot go it alone. Foundations, businessmen, the public, the media, foreign and local, even diplomatic representatives stationed in this country I believe all have a duty to project South Africa as she is, not as a statically intransigent oppressive country but as a dynamic society whose Government does not shy away from bold initiatives. After all, it is not only in the interests of South Africa that these initiatives towards internal and regional stability succeed but equally in the interests of the whole of Southern Africa and indeed the entire free world.

Unmarketable.

So are you! [Interjections.]

South Africa is in many ways unique, and one of the problems encountered in marketing ourselves abroad is the fact that we are a bilingual country and that many of the foreign journalists and even diplomats who come here knowing English already do not bother to learn Afrikaans. What further complicates the situation is the fact that the entire English national Press with the exception of one newspaper tends to support the political bias of the official Opposition whereas the entire Afrikaans Press with the exception of one newspaper tends to support the line of the governing party. This means that unless one reads both newspapers one cannot glean or project a balanced picture of developments in South Africa. Therefore I would urge foreign correspondents and diplomats to follow the commendable examples of the British Embassy whose five top officials have all acquired a working knowledge of Afrikaans, and of the American Embassy, three senior officials of which have acquired a similar knowledge. I would also urge all South Africans who wish to be informed—and it is necessary to be in formed—not to read either the English or Afrikaans Press regardless of their language group but to read both, to read at least one newspaper from both camps.

*I think it is absolutely essential and it is our duty to be informed on matters of importance. It is also the duty of the State to see that we are, because the State has a mandate from the electorate to govern the country and to manage its foreign relations on their behalf for the duration of its mandate, and because the electorate and the country, or the inhabitants of the country, those who voted for the Government, those who voted against the Government and those who did not vote at all, must know what the State is doing, because the activities and the initiatives of the Government, and not those of the Opposition parties, determine the fate of the inhabitants of this country. For that reason I say that there is a better solution, and this is that ways and means must be found for the State to make much better use of the television service. In referring to the State and the Government, I do not mean the NP.

The television service must be much better ulitized because it is bilingual, because it is one of the most effective information media in the world and because people in this country, including the Blacks, who also watch television, will then know what is going on. Similarly, the television service is a very important source of information for foreign correspondents and the embassies.

†I am sure that every hon member basically agrees with me because the hon member for Durban Central also stressed the necessity of a free flow of information on what the Government does and intends doing.

*The hon member for Sunnyside said as far back as 1974—before the advent of television, therefore:

Yes, information.

I am talking about information, and I have said so, but those people have no perception of information. There is one thing which the Russian CP and the South African CP have in comon, and that is their persistent use of misleading tactics, misinformation and disinformation …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Benoni allowed to equate the CP with the Communist Party of Russia?

Order! The hon member for Benoni must withdraw that remark.

Sir, I withdraw it. However, I am not equating them. I only said that these two parties used the same information techniques.

Order! The hon member must withdraw it unconditionally.

Sir, I withdraw it.

I conclude by saying that the type of disinformation and negative information used by that party was exemplified in the speech by the hon member for Soutpansberg, a speech which, in the situation in which we find ourselves, was superficial and unintelligent, to say the least.

Mr Speaker, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs on his appointment. I think this debate will be the first occasion on which he will be acting officially in his new capacity. I want to say at once that I trust that he is not going to change now. We know him as a person who rushes into politics head over heels. For example, some years ago he merrily poked fun at another man’s “Bols” joke. [Interjections.] I think sometimes one can forgive all the sins of enthusiastic people. Consequently we hope that the hon the Deputy Minister will remain as enthusiastic as always and will continue to walk about in this Chamber swinging his arms and shoulders. That is how we like him to be. We also hope that he will be very happy in his position and will do a good job of work for South Africa and not for the NP.

†I think that those of us who have been overseas will be aware that it is difficult for our information service to work overseas first of all because we are a very small and relatively unimportant little country in world and international terms. I do not intend giving our information services any unnecessary advice. I do, however, wish to deal with this motion which is before us and to indicate why we as a party will not support it and why we have moved an amendment. I want to congratulate the hon member for Benoni for having read the article by Darryll Phillips in the Sunday Times. If he and the information group of the NP had made an analysis of that article and had consulted people like Darryll Phillips—I notice that the NP was not shy to consult Saatchi and Saatchi for their referendum campaign—they might have made some progress. Let me say immediately that the NP ran an excellent media campaign. In fact, I thought that they must have had some advice from the PFP during that time. We would have run as good a one if we had access to the money which they seem to have had at their command. Now I am not talking about the SABC. I have a friend who never watches the SATV with his shoes on because he gets so angry when he sees the propaganda that he is frightened that he will throw his shoes at his television set and smash it.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North asks us to involve all South Africans in a campaign. I do not believe that we should try to involve South Africans. Our view in this party is that most people want to promote South Africa, that they actually believe in this country and that they actually love it. We have had a classic example of what South Africans would do this very week in Cape Town where the 50th anniversary of the SA Institute of International Affairs brought together a group of influential and significant international people and power brokers and opinion formers in the Western World. Indeed, not only from the Western World, but from the East as well. South Africans actually want to promote their country. They are proud of it. Last night on television we saw the SA Foundation people who are doing the same thing for South Africa. However, they are not prepared to be State employees. They are not prepared to lick the hand of the Government. They are prepared to promote South Africa and to push its interests. What South Africans want, is a chance. They do not want to be irritated and frustrated by this Government. The sort of thing that makes it difficult to promote South Africa’s interests, is when people are detained without trial. I know of 12 people in my constituency who have been detained without trial since November 1983. I do not believe that it is the kind of thing which helps us in South Africa when Amnesty International in its annual report has to devote five or six pages to South Africa. I believe that it is something to be ashamed of. Why does the hon the Minister of Community Development have to go and move people in Lansdowne at this time? If the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs wants to make a major break-through in international publicity for South Africa, he should arrange for the Minister of Community Development to go to Lansdowne and shake the hands of Mrs McLaghlan, Mrs Holford and Mr Goliath and to tear up those notices that have been sent to them. That message will ring through the world in a way in which nothing else will. It would tell the world that we are serious about moving away from racial discrimination. We must not move settled communities. The rest of the world cannot understand why people have to be moved simply because of the colour of their skin. Nobody can choose his parents. The hon the Deputy Minister will tell us openly that he came out of a poor family, that he struggled to become a successful professional man and that he is now almost knocking on the door of the Cabinet. He could change that. I am sure that he can tell us about many of his friends who are perhaps living as he could have lived in a poorer part of one of our major cities in South Africa. But he could change that. The hon the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, before he went to represent South Africa as an ambassador to the Court of St James, stumbled over his English. However, he applied himself and today that hon Minister speaks good English. He could change it. However, not one of us can change the colour of our skin. Not one of us can choose our parents. As long as the Government forces racial discrimination on people and makes the colour of a man’s skin a non-negotiable issue, something about which he can do nothing, it will create problems. We can give up smoking and drinking and get a new tailor and improve our clothes, but we cannot change the colour of our skin.

I believe that the motion of the hon member for Bloemfontein North is insulting to South Africans because we need not be told to become involved in a campaign; we want to be involved. However, this Government, through its actions, makes us ashamed, embarrassed, angry and depressed by what it does. There is an example of that on today’s Order Paper. The first notice of motion is from the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs asking for leave to introduce a Bill to prevent the publication of certain information regarding petroleum products. Why do we need to have all this secrecy? [Interjections.] Why do we have at least two or three court cases going on now involving millions of rand about the State Oil Fund? Because of South Africa’s policies, we have to keep things secret and we have to avoid the rest of the world knowing where we get our supplies from. That is so because of apartheid.

The second leg of the hon member’s motion is even more interesting. He says that we must involve the South African public “to make the people of all communities aware of the growing threat against the Republic of South Africa”. I would recommend to hon members of this House a book written by an American historian called Hofstadter. The book is called The Paranoid Mind in American Politics. He analyzes the conspiracy theory. We recently had that highlighted in South Africa. A certain ds Scheuer of Ermelo issued a pamphlet purporting and suggesting a conspiratorial view of South African history, hinting that all sorts of hidden forces are at work in the country. That point of view has been prevalent in history, as Professor Hofstadter points out, for three or four centuries. At one stage it was the Jesuits who manipulated history; then the Papists; then the Freemasons and then the world money power and the Illuminati. We have this thought coming through all the time. I believe that we should be very careful of allowing people with this point of view to shape our information strategy. Any vested interest will look after its own interests. To build a foreign policy, or information strategy or a view of history on a conspiratorial view is highly dangerous. This ds Scheuer is apparently a dominee in the Dutch Reformed Church, but how he can square his view with his belief in the sovereignty of God as well as in the sin of man, is a mystery to me.

In this motion the hon member moves towards a watered-down version of the total onslaught.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, I am sorry. That hon member should have asked his questions in Australia.

If we hold a total onslaught view and if we actually believe that this country is faced by a growing threat, we lead ourselves into a sterile position, because how do we actually get out of this situation? The total onslaught has in the last three months been shown up as the farce, as the ridiculous point of view that it is, as we have always maintained. [Interjections.] If you believe in a total onslaught, all means justify an end, and apart from that being wrong, it acts as a cloak for corruption in the broader sense, as ex-Judge Mostert said. I believe that there should be a little statue of ex-Judge Mostert at the entrance to the offices of the Department of Information to remind them of the importance of open dealing. As was mentioned by an hon member, this department is recovering slowly from the effects of the Rhoodie Mulder era. In fact, just three days ago we received the State Trust Board’s report in which it is stated that they have been able to recover R28 million. For that we are thankful. However, when one considers how much of our public money was dishonestly and wickedly wasted, I believe it to be a serious matter.

Why do you not take them to court?

I would remind that hon member that he was in the National Party caucus then and that he should have taken them to court at that time. The gentleman who told a lie to Parliament was a member of his party. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must now give the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North an opportunity to make his speech.

Thank you, Sir, but one develops a strong voice in this place after a while.

In our information campaign our target market obviously has to be our friends. We are not going to convince the Russians, nor do we want to. Our target market is those countries which are friendly to us. Most of them are, in terms of public debate and discussion, what are called open societies. They do not conduct their television along the lines of SATV. They have on their television open and frank debate.

Are you talking about Australia?

Order! The hon member Dr Vilonel must contain himself.

They bring the leaders of the different political parties in to join in public debates. The public in those countries are used to open robust discussion. If we are going to market South Africa to those countries, we have to do so on that basis.

I think that nothing has indicated more clearly what an open society is about than the recent incident in Australia when that Government—I think, quite unreasonably—refused visas to the member for Constantia and a member of that very expensive advisory committee called the President’s Council.

You mean the hon member for Maitland.

Yes, the hon member for Maitland. My apologies. I know he lives in Constantia. The point is that those two gentlemen—we could not get an answer today to a question on that subject—go at the Government’s expense, at the taxpayers’ expense, and nobody else is invited. They are both supporters of the new constitution. What has, however, been the effect? The people in Australia are, quite rightly, very annoyed about it and the hon member for Maitland has had telephone calls from Australia and has been able to talk on the media and put his point of view. I may say that the SABC is very righteously indignant about the matter. Imagine the effect overseas when we refuse visas to people, in many cases people who in those countries seem to be reasonable and decent people. I think we must appreciate that the refusal of visas to the hon member for Maitland and the member of the President’s Council will actually do South Africa more good in the long term, because it will whip back on the Australian Government.

Mr Darryll Phillips points out that we should be honest about our problems. The hon the Deputy Minister will recall that we went on an overseas trip together. He was the leader of the team. The hon member for Benoni also came along. We had some very strong disagreements. In fact, on occasion he was extremely annoyed and the hon member for Benoni nearly choked on a number of occasions. I think that the message that came across to people overseas was that South Africa cannot be written off, that there is not only a Government point of view, but also a strong Opposition point of view and that we are not frightened to put it. That is why, of course, Dr Rhoodie understood very well that the hon member for Houghton was a very powerful person in terms of the Western community because she has been a symbol of and given more credibility to freedom in South Africa than anybody else because she has stood on her own for South Africa. What do people overseas know? They know that we have a complex problem. They know that South Africa is a difficult country to rule and to run, and they want an honest statement. They do not want half-truths. They do not want whitewash. They want us to say: Look, it is a problem.

Let us just consider one recent example of the kind of situation that should be exploited by the information service. Last month we had a situation developing in Atteridgeville, Pretoria, which could very easily have led to the kind of problems experienced in June 1976. How did the Government deal with it? The hon the Minister of Education and Training last month moved efficiently and effectively to defuse that situation. He called in Bishop Tutu and he tried to talk to people. He did everything possible, as one would expect a good Minister to do, to defuse that situation. On the other hand, in 1976, when the hon member for Waterberg was the Deputy Minister, he went to Windhoek and made an inflammatory speech, which did not help to cool the situation. It was also not helped by the then Minister of Co-operation and Development, Minister M C Botha. The difference in style is noticeable, and the Government should point that out, as I often do overseas as well. What was the Government’s reaction in 1961 after Sharpeville? The Government immediately closed everything and banned the ANC and PAC. What has been the reaction of the Government since 1976? It has tried to introduce reform. There is a clear difference between the Government’s attitude after Sharpeville and the Government’s attitude after Soweto. On the one hand it was suppression and after 1976 it has been an attempt at reform. That is the sort of message that the Department of Information should carry out. It must not try to wrap everything up in tinsel and gloss. It seems to me that one should also appreciate that ultimately what one is going to try to cover up will be exposed.

We are now coming to the stage of signing agreements or of coming to some sort of agreement with Angola on disengaging from that country, when our Government is being telling us that we have never been in Angola and that we only have hot pursuits into that country to go and get rid of terrorists camps. But here we have an international agreement to disengage. It is a Biblical principle that what is done in secret is going to be shouted from the house-tops.

Look at the situation in Moçambique. From what we read in newspapers we are going to have monitoring of the security agreements. Monitoring what? The MNR, Renamo and the ANC base are going to be monitored. We have been saying for years that we do not know anything about the MNR, although the head of the MNR gets shot dead just outside Pretoria on Defence Force property. The point is that one cannot go on bluffing people all the time. We must have a Department of Information which tells the truth. There is of course also a time to keep quiet.

South Africa, I believe, must exploit other links. There are many ways of developing South Africa’s position world-wide. In 1988 we are going to have the 500th anniversary of Bartholomew Diaz’s visits. Imagine, if the Department of Information uses its brains, how we can exploit that to make people interested in Southern Africa! We can rebuild the little ship, a caravel, which he came in. We can get Bertie Reed, our single-man sailor, to sail it around the Cape. We can recreate all these kinds of things, which are non-controversial, of tremendous human interest and which could boost South Africa around the world.

There is no growing threat against South Africa as the motion states. The only threat is the policies of the NP. If the NP is going to reform and keep reforming I believe we will not need to spend money on this kind of information propaganda.

Mr Speaker, quite a number of highly contentious political statements have been made in the course of this debate, inter alia by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, who has just resumed his seat, and by the hon member for Soutpansberg. I must discipline myself to resist the temptation of replying to all these political arguments.

I should like to react to remarks of a more positive nature which the hon member made. He said among other things that most South Africans wanted to promote the image of their country abroad. I want to agree with him on that score. I think that most South Africans, all the political parties represented here in this House, are united in respect of a few aspects pertaining to our country. In the first place I believe that we are all opposed to the isolation of South Africa. In the second place I believe that we are all in favour of the economic development of our country and that other countries should be allowed to invest money here.

Thirdly I believe that all of us in this House are in favour of South Africans solving their political problems themselves and that no outside forces should determine domestic policy in South Africa. Furthermore I believe that the majority of us in this House have faith in the future of our country, South Africa. The hon member said something in connection with the total onslaught, and I shall come back to that at a later stage of my speech.

I should like to convey my cordial thanks to the hon member for Bloemfontein North for the motion which he introduced, and also for his speech justifying his standpoint. I also want to thank the hon member for Geduld, who conveyed very justifiable praise to the department for the work that was being done. I also thank the hon member for Brits for his thoughtfulness in notifying me that he would not be able to be here now, and I should like to thank the hon member for Benoni for the standpoint he adopted.

The hon member for Umhlanga placed very strong emphasis on our need to be careful about incidents in South Africa which might be blown up abroad. The hon member is correct, of course, because it is a fact that the international media thrives on such incidents. If there are no incidents, there is no news on South Africa. Consequently, if we want to keep South Africa out of the maelstrom, we must make sure that no incidents occur here. I agree with him on that score.

The hon member for Durban Central moved an amendment and said inter alia in his amendment that greater emphasis should be placed on the complexities of our society. I want to say at once that I agree with that standpoint. The problem facing the department is, however, that so many of our people—and I am afraid that the official Opposition are part of that problem—are actually trying to present this country to the outside world as a country which is not a complex one. They try to imply that the Black population of South Africa is a homogeneous population, and do not wish to admit that we are living in a multiracial country and that we are dealing with a multi-ethnic population.

I was disappointed with certain aspects of the speech made by the hon member for Soutpansberg. I was particularly disappointed because the hon member seemed to me to be embittered today. [Interjections.] He acted like a person who had lost the election in Soutpansberg. The hon member must grow accustomed to the fact that he won the election, and he should also be a little less embittered. The hon member made a very personal attack on the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I am sorry he did so. Yet I believe that he let the cat out of the bag this afternoon, because as justification for his attack on the Minister he referred to the actions of the Minister in the past. Apart from referring to the television appearances of the hon the Minister in the recent past, he also referred to the Minister’s conduct in America when he was an ambassador for our country there, as well as to his conduct since that time. The hon member was very bitter about the way in which the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs supposedly conducted himself at the time as ambassador in America. The question I ask myself is the following: Did this criticism of the Minister of Foreign Affairs arise today? No, Sir, the hon member has been carrying his criticism and standpoints around with him for many years, even when he was still a member of the NP caucus. [Interjections.] Over the years, what is more, the hon member did not keep this criticism to himself, but when he was still member of the NP, he covertly disparaged and maligned the Minister of Foreign Affairs concerning matters which he will not mention in public. There is a reason for that, and we know what that reason is. It is a personal reason. The hon member, who has known the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs for a long time, is jealous of the Minister. I ask him to cut it out now; it is completely uncalled for.

The hon member for Waterberg also made an embittered attack on the SABC, particularly on the actions of the corporation during the recent election.

Am I jealous of the SABC as well?

No, the hon member is not. During the referendum campaign, for example, the hon member for Waterberg was afforded no fewer than 10 opportunities to appear on television. Quite a few of the other hon members of the CP were also afforded the same opportunities. [Interjections.] The television service of the SABC conveyed the message of the CP into the living-rooms of every home in the remotest part of this country. In fact, there is not a single household in this country which did not know what the standpoints of the CP and its hon members were, thanks to the actions of the television service of the SABC. [Interjections.]

I now wish to say a few words in connection with the department’s guest programme. The guest programme is most probably one of the most successful operations of the information section of the Department of Foreign Affairs. From 1 April 1983 to the end of February 1984, for example, 269 people were officially received as guests in South Africa, and 787 people received local assistance. In 1983 approximately 5 800 interviews were arranged for official foreign guests. A large variety of contact people participated in the programme, and spoke to those guests. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to convey thanks to those who gave up some of their time to hold interviews with official guests. In this way, for example, one particular spokesman held as many as 69 interviews with official guests during 1983. Opinion-formers from all race groups, members of Parliament from all political parties, and members of the President’s Council all made important contributions in this connection.

I want to put it to hon member of the official Opposition that our experience with foreign guests clearly indicates that foreign guests are indeed interested in what comprises the standpoints of the Opposition parties in this country. Naturally the greatest interest is most certainly in what the standpoint of the Government of the day is. That is why we feel ourselves at liberty to expose those guests to the standpoints of hon members of the official Opposition as well. I therefore convey my sincere thanks to hon members of the official Opposition and other Opposition parties for the service they are rendering in this connection.

It is also necessary for me, I think, to say a few words about the question of the total onslaught. I notice that I have very little time at my disposal. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North referred to this subject.

There are enemies of South Africa who are spread all over the world and who are planning to bring about the downfall of the present dispensation in South Africa. No one in this House can deny that statement. The second statement I want to make is that those people are pursuing a specific strategy throughout the world in order to achieve their objectives in an effective way. That strategy is prominently discernible in resolutions adopted from time to time by the OAU, as well as in resolutions adopted at the United Nations. This cannot therefore be denied. This strategy is aimed in the first place at boycotting and isolating the South African Government in every possible sphere of life.

Now, it is a fact that these boycott activities have to take place in the military and security, as well as the economic, the social, the cultural and the labour sphere, and also in the sphere of sport and diplomacy. No one can deny that. Is there any person in this House who is prepared to deny that? Is there any person who wants to say that it is not true?

Once South Africa has been isolated, once South Africa is on its own and has been weakened, the strategy is aimed, with the help of the ANC, at promoting and furthering polarization in South Africa. Then the moment arrives when it is possible to take action against a weakened regime by unleashing a revolution in South Africa. This is undoubtedly the strategy which is being adopted. This is a strategy which plays its part in every sphere of life in South Africa. It is a total strategy. Surely that cannot be denied, Mr Speaker.

Now we are facing the situation today, and the hon member for Soutpansberg also referred to this …

Apartheid is our enemies’ greatest weapon. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Soutpansberg … [Interjections.]

You yourselves give them the weapon. It is apartheid. [Interjections.]

Order! I have appealed to hon members to give the hon the Deputy Minister an opportunity to make his speech. I am calling for order, and the hon member for Bryanston must not ignore my appeal. Does the hon member wish to remain here in this House, or would he prefer to go and sit outside?

Mr Speaker, that was my first interjection this afternoon.

Order! That is not correct. The hon member must not argue the matter with the Chair. I am asking the hon member for the last time now to contain himself. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

In any event, Mr Speaker, it is a fact today that so far the strategy of isolating South Africa in every sphere of life has not succeeded, but because the strategy of isolating South Africa has not succeeded, does not mean that there is no strategy to isolate South Africa. This does not mean that a total onslaught is not being waged against this country. In these circumstances facing us the Government has developed a counter-strategy which is intended to avert the total onslaught and neutralize it as far as possible. At present the situation is that we can say that up to now the total onslaught has not succeeded but that this country would be stupid if it thought that there was no total onslaught still in progress in this country.

We must now ask ourselves this question: What does this counter-strategy consist of? In this connection I want to mention a few aspects. It consists in the first place of the evaluation of information by the various security disciplines of the Government. It consists of continuing with the reform programme in South Africa without throwing in the towel but simultaneously ensuring justice for all. The counter-strategy consists of maintaining internal security at all costs, and in this connection the SA Police have played an important role and we are very grateful to them. The counter-strategy consists of our having to build up a strong economy so that we can cope with boycotts. It consists of our having to be able to cope with an oil embargo, and we did. It consists of our having to cope with an arms embargo, and we did. The counter-strategy consists furthermore of maintaining the legal system in South Africa so that all the world can see—in spite of the arguments to the contrary—that South Africa is a country in which the independence of the judiciary is being maintained. The counter-strategy consists in maintaining a strong Defence Force in South Africa. We must understand one another very clearly in this connection. The task of the Defence Force is not merely to wage war. In the first place, it is the task of the Defence Force to fight if that should be necessary, and in the second place, when we have peace in our country, to act as a deterrent for the preservation of that peace. The counter-strategy also consists of our diplomats extending South Africa’s sphere of influence as far as possible by means of negotiations.

Under the circumstances I must address a word of serious warning that we in South Africa should not, in view of the present initiatives which are important and for which we are grateful, suddenly think that the dangers surrounding our country have passed. Our euphoria must not exceed all bounds. We must be realistic and realize that we in South Africa are still in danger, that we must continue to be prepared and that we must remain strong.

Finally I want to assure this House that under the guidance of the hon the Prime Minister, the Government will continue to remain strong in every possible sphere; that we will continue to resist wherever an attack is made on us; and that the Government will continue to oppose its enemies and that it is to be hoped we shall continue to win the struggle.

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

Mr Speaker, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

I do not think there are any farmers’ associations, district agricultural unions or any organizations concerned with agriculture or having contact with agriculture or dependent on agriculture, or any suppliers to agriculture in our country today that are not at present engaged in an exhaustive debate on the problems currently being experienced by the agricultural sector of South Africa.

Therefore the question that may justifiably be asked is what purpose a debate such as the one we are about to have this afternoon can serve, when it is probably general knowledge that everyone involved in agriculture, including and in particular the SA Agricultural Union, the Department of Agriculture and the Ministers concerned, are giving in-depth attention to the matter. Consequently I do not want to put it any higher than that I hope that the result of this afternoon’s debate will be that all of us in this House as representatives of the entire South African community will agree and lend our support to the State taking extraordinary steps to try to solve the problem with the means at its disposal. That is the highest value I wish to put on it.

If any person thinks that we can solve the problem this afternoon, or even debate it properly, he is not aware of the magnitude of this problem. In addition, the object this afternoon is not to adopt a defeatist attitude and bewail the lot of our farmers. It is true that many of our farmers in the disaster areas are probably despondent, but we know our farmers—they are not people without courage. Some of them bay be despondent at the moment, but they are courageous people. It is not our task to weaken the courage that they have, but to give them more courage.

I glanced briefly at the debate on the Agricultural Vote that was held in this House in May last year. In particular I looked at the speech made on that occasion by the hon the Minister of Agriculture. I am of the opinion that the hon the Minister furnished a good summary of the problems which agriculture and the farmers were having to contend with slightly less than a year ago. At the time, in a very competent way, the hon the Minister set out the problems of agriculture in regard to the increase in the input costs of agriculture—it is a problem we are all acquainted with. He pointed to the inflation problem, the declining profit margins, the abnormally high interest rate which the agricultural sector could not bear and, finally, he pointed out that the problems encountered by agriculture had been precipitated by the drought that was prevailing last year. The hon the Minister then, quite rightly, announced the aid measures which the State had adopted.

Today it is slightly less than a year later. The input costs for production in the agricultural industry have risen even further. For large sectors of the agricultural industry there is almost no question of a profit margin any more. The interest rate pattern in the country has deteriorated even further, as far as agriculture is concerned. Looking at the speech the hon the Minister made last year, I notice that he announced with gratitude that the primary interest rate of the banks had at that stage dropped to 14%. He then made an appeal to the banks to accommodate the farmers in that regard as well. That primary interest rate of the banks has since sky-rocketed. To crown everything, the magnitude of the drought has been further aggravated, and even then I am understating the position.

A further problem has now cropped up, which we may have overlooked during the debate last year. The role of agriculture and the farming community as a provider of employment, particularly to our Black people, is now being seriously jeopardized. This is one factor which will have to receive serious attention from the authorities very soon. I do not think that we expect to get a comprehensive reply in regard to the situation we have to contend with from the hon the Minister or from the department this afternoon. That would be unfair. I would almost say that it would be impudent to expect any such thing. However, we are aware that the SA Agricultural Union and its affiliated organization have instituted an investigation into the problems we have to contend with. We know that the hon the Minister met these organizations yesterday and that they made a comprehensive submission to him of how they saw matters and what they suggested as a solution. I think it would be unfair of us to expect the hon the Minister to be able to react to that today, at this early stage. I do not know how to put it, but I think the highest hurdle the hon the Minister will have to clear before he can provide us with an answer, is to succeed in achieving something with the hon the Minister of Finance on behalf of the farmers of South Africa. We on our part wish the hon the Minister everything of the best in that attempt.

I think that the SA Agricultural Union has made a comprehensive and overall investigation of the financial position in which the farmers find themselves at present, in particular the farmers in the drought disaster areas. I believe that the hon the Minister, his department and the Cabinet will give this matter the necessary attention. I want to repeat that we shall support the Minister in what he does in the interests of the farmer. There is one thing that worries me, though. When one undertakes a comprehensive and overall investigation of the situation as it affects the farming community as a whole, it is a good thing that this should be done, but I am nevertheless of the opinion that in the situation in which a large section of the agricultural sector finds itself today, it has perhaps become imperative, and I want to suggest this, that not only should a general investigation be undertaken, but that an investigation pertaining to individual farmers should be instituted to establish precisely what the magnitude of the problem is of farmers who will no longer be able to qualify for assistance and remain on their farms. We shall then be in a position to take the right decisions. We shall then know the truly practical extent of the problem and how many farmers today are in fact in the position that they will no longer be able to continue.

If there are such farmers, another problem arises. There will quite probably be farmers who cannot make the grade. If it must happen that those farmers become insolvent and their land, in the present situation, is inevitably placed on the market by means of forced sales, I think that this will also jeopardize the general position of farmers who are still financially strong enough to continue.

If the State were merely to be a spectator if—and it need not be a large percentage—forced sales had to take place in the position in which agriculture now finds itself, one can imagine what a catastrophic effect this would have on the most important security asset the farmers still have, namely the price of their land. I cannot advocate strongly enough—and I want to suggest this—that if it can be established that the magnitude of the problem of individual farmers could have such an effect, the State should intervene in the normal operation of the economy in this connection as well. I want to advocate and request that in such cases the authorities should ensure that those farms of people who are no longer able to make the grade will not be subjected to forced sale, but that we find ways and means so that the State can take over those properties and perhaps subsequently allocate them to farmers who are able to make the grade. I know that this is something radical which I am suggesting, but in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, radical measures may perhaps be necessary.

I also want to refer to the short term. As the hon the Minister indicated last year, we who are engaged in practical farming and even those who are still so fortunate and so blessed that we have not yet been affected by the drought, know that at the present interest rate pattern no farmer in general—there are exceptions—can carry this burden of interest and still continue to produce profitably. It is all very well that the State’s policy is that the prevailing interest rates should be maintained, inter alia to keep inflation low and perhaps also help to make up for inflation. The fact remains that agriculture cannot pay that price, unless the agricultural industry receives a corresponding increase and compensation for what it is producing. Unfortunately that is not happening.

There is a further problem. The Government will be compelled to find methods for providing the farmers with credit to enable them to plant another crop in the coming year. The fact of the matter is, and this is general knowledge, that many of those farmers who will have no crop this year, simply do not have the ability any more to acquire their own means of production.

I come now to a matter which has been worrying me for some time now. Many debates have been conducted in this House in regard to general sales tax. Representations have already been made in this House on behalf of the consumer requesting that GST should not be levied on food. On numerous occasions we have had the argument from the hon the Minister of Finance that it was allegedly so difficult to make exceptions and we have heard about other problems in this connection, and we understand them. Yet, in the case of agriculture, there is exemption from GST in regard to a major portion of the purchase of means of production, although only up to a certain point. The argument of the Department of Finance and the Treasury in the past was that those means of production required by agriculture for direct production were exempted from this tax. Means which they consider to be so-called capital purchases or purchases for capital improvements or for the marketing of produce, however, are not exempted from GST. I think this is an entirely technical distinction which is being drawn here. Whether I buy fertilizer with which to plant my maize or a tractor to plough my lands, to me as a farmer these things, in both cases, remain expenses which I have to incur for the production of my product. Consequently I cannot understand why the exception which is being made for the agricultural industry in respect of GST on the purchase of the means of production, cannot also be taken further. Let me mention a practical example; then we as farmers will understand one another better. Why should I pay 7% GST on the barbed wire I buy? In my part of the world it no longer lasts even 10 years, probably because of the quality of the barbed wire one buys these days. After 10 years it has to be replaced. Why should I pay 7% GST on it? Why should I as a farmer—and most farmers are having quite a hard time of it—pay GST of R2 000 and even more today on the purchase price of an average tractor costing R30 000? Cannot the State and the Treasury manage without that revenue? The fact remains that the farmer cannot bear the additional cost of GST alone. Surely an attempt should be made to transfer the additional costs to the eventual consumer of the agricultural product. Surely that is the position. That is why I also wish to make a plea in this connection.

It is not the occasion today to hurl reproaches in regard to errors that have been made. Errors have been made and will continue to be made. Recently, however, our farmers have been encouraged, morning, noon and night, to produce as much as they can. Time and again targets have been set by extension officers, by co-operatives and particularly by fertilizer salesmen, so that farmers would strive for optimum production. Sometimes the fact that what should be striven for should be optimum economic production was overlooked. The two are not the same. On the contrary, it is now beginning to appear that the endeavour to achieve optimum production in some of the branches of agriculture may be a reason for the problems which many of our farmers are experiencing. We read about the people in Northern Natal who have a 10-ton club, and that they boast of harvesting 10 tons of maize and even more per hectare. That is fine and wonderful. If one goes to look at the wonderful animals on display at agricultural shows, that, too, is splendid, but is it not perhaps time we offered a prize for the farmer who produces the highest profit per hectare of maize which he plants? Would that not perhaps be a more realistic competition than to encourage people to achieve a tremendous production with unusually high inputs?

In this connection, one is beginning to become concerned about whether the results of scientific research at our universities, which are no longer so closely linked to the Department of Agriculture as they were in the past, are to a sufficient extent being passed on to the farming industry by the extension bodies. In my opinion urgent attention should be given to this matter as well. It has always been my standpoint that while we are waxing so lyrical in our country these days about the so-called free market system, there is not a country left in the world, particularly as far as agriculture is concerned—and this includes the USA—in which a free market system in the classical sense of the word still applies, because there is no country in the world in which the authorities do not intervene in the operation of the free market system, particularly as far as agriculture is concerned. I think it is right, particularly in a country like South Africa, that the State should intervene whenever it is necessary—just as it is urgently necessary today—in the operation of the free market system as it applies to the agricultural industry.

For many of our farmers it would seem that the sand in the hour-glass has almost run out. I want to make a plea this afternoon: If it is feasible, we should reverse that hour-glass and give the farmers another chance. We are not dealing here with a problem which affects the agriculturist only. It is probably a cliché, but this is a socioeconomic problem. It affects not only the farmers, but large areas of our country. That is why one feels at liberty to make an appeal to all inhabitants of our country, to all the taxpayers of our country, to all co-operate in the hour of need of the agricultural industry and do what ought to be done. We look forward to ascertaining as quickly as possible from the State what it sees its way clear to doing.

In conclusion, I should like to express my thanks for the assistance that has already been announced for the farmers in the flood-ravaged areas of Natal and the Eastern Transvaal. I believe that the assistance which is being rendered is comprehensive. One cannot but think that it will serve a good purpose. We say thank you very much for that.

With the hope that the debate this afternoon will serve a useful purpose, it has been a pleasure for me to introduce this motion.

Mr Speaker, at the outset I want to say that I have no fault to find with the motion of the hon member for Barberton. In fact, I do not think there is any person in this House who will find fault with the motion as such. Furthermore, I have no fault to find with the hon member’s speech. The fact that he made certain proposals, simply contributed to the many other proposals we already have. We are prepared to consider all proposals and assess each one on its merits. We find ourselves in a very difficult situation as far as agriculture is concerned. There is no doubt about that. As the hon member for Barberton rightly said, this is not the occasion to cover ourselves in sackcloth and ashes and bewail our lot.

On Friday, 10 February 1978, I introduced a motion in this House which read as follows:

On that occasion, strangely enough on the same day on which I introduced the motion, an article appeared in the Financial Gazette under the headline “Farmers face Waterloo”. It read as follows:

I then said:

That was in 1978, when our agricultural industry had its back to the wall, although perhaps not to the same extent as today. However, at that stage we really thought that we had our backs to the wall.

In 1978, too, we introduced certain aid measures, some of which we are still using today, schemes which were devised at the time and are still being applied today, although they have since been adopted to a certain extent. Agricultural conditions have changed since 1978. Since 1978 we have had prosperity in the agricultural industry in the short term, and up to 1981, in fact, all went well in agriculture, or seemed to do so. For example, our tractor sales reached an all-time high in 1981, and so, too, did our exports of agricultural produce. In the period between 1978 and the end of 1981 there was consequently every reason to feel very optimistic about the agricultural industry. But then the drought came, and together with the drought came not a recession, but a depression. Coupled with it were high interest rates and the fact that surpluses of agricultural produce occurred in all countries of the world, to such an extent that at present agricultural produce from Europe and from America is virtually being vended. We are therefore finding it extremely difficult to compete on the world market. We found the situation that those countries that had the surpluses had spent large amounts on subsidies and that agricultural produce had been dumped on the international markets. In other words, we have in general had an accumulation of unfavourable circumstances for agriculture over a period of a few years.

But what happened besides the drought and the other unfavourable factors? A distortion in our agricultural structure occurred, and I shall just refer to this briefly. As a result of the drought, farmers who had previously never been dairy producers, began to deliver dairy produce, with resultant problems for that specific branch of the industry. Last year, for example, people began to plant potatoes on an enormous scale in order to have a quick cash income, but once again, with catstrophic results as far as supplies were concerned. As a result of keen competition on the European markets, farmers who previously produced fruit for canning purposes changed over to the production of dried fruit, and this in turn influenced the dried fruit industry. We found that as a result of large-scale dumping of wine on the American market from the ocean of wine in Europe, the farmers of California, instead of making wine from their sultana grapes, resorted to the production of raisins. As a result, the raisin trade has now gone for a loop. Owing to an incredible combination of circumstances, we find a distortion—in our traditional agricultural set-up as well—in our agricultural structure.

As the hon member for Barberton said, there is no agricultural industry in the world today which is completely self-supporting. I pointed out this fact on the very first day I spoke in this House—when I made my maiden speech. I said at the time that everywhere in the world, agriculture was supported by the government. When one supports agriculture too heavily, though, one ventures into another danger zone. That is the zone of a socialistic industry. A sound equilibrium must always be maintained between an industry operating in accordance with the principles of a free market economy and an industry which has to be supported owing to the nature of its composition.

At the time I also said that the physical presence of food in a country could be more important than what it cost. That argument is just as valid today. When we take cognizance today of one of our basic foodstuffs in this country, for example maize, and receive calls from millers complaining that they only have a few hours’ supplies available if the Southeaster does not stop blowing so that the ships can discharge their cargoes, one understands for the first time how important it is for one’s country to be self-sufficient as far as its nutritional needs are concerned. For that reason the State will never be able to dissociate itself from agriculture and expect that industry to be fully self-supporting. That can never happen. Agriculture is a strategic industry; an absolutely strategic industry. If there are certain sectors, certain groups in our country, certain business organizations in our country, that say we should strive for a free market economy in its absolute form, I believe that to do so would be a mistake. It would be quite wrong.

Initially I rose to my feet here to sketch briefly what aid measures the Government had already made available to agriculture. I can assure hon members that the Government went out of its way during the past year or two to keep the small, medium and large farmers on their farms.

I think the first Press interview I gave after I had been appointed to my present position was one in which I said that one of my objectives and, I believe, that of the Governmentas well, was to keep agriculture in as many individual hands as possible. I believe absolutely that we should guard against agriculture falling into the hands of a few major moneyed interests or big business consortiums.

On 15 February 1980 I moved another private motion in this House, precisely with a view to warning against this. Therefore, as the Book of Ecclesiastes says, there is nothing new under the sun. There is nothing new under the sun except that, I think, the aftereffects of the drought we are experiencing at the moment will last longer than those of any other drought in living memory in this country.

We talk about the 1933 drought. Perhaps the 1933 drought was more visible. Its effect was more catastrophic for many farmers. Precisely as a result of the aid measures and better organization, and precisely as a result of our improved financial planning and financial institutions, we are going to get through this drought with fewer visible effects than those of the 1933 drought.

We introduced aid schemes which we thought would be adequate. Some of these aid schemes—I do not want to repeat this in detail today—amounted to an uneconomic subsidization of individual farmers. I want to mention only one example. In phase 5 we give a farmer R6 000 a month to enable him to maintain a basic herd of 1 200 sheep—that is, R72 000 per annum—of which 70% is subsidized. Consequently we are giving such a farmer a subsidy of R50 400 per annum. This cannot be justified on purely economic grounds, but why are we doing it? We are doing this precisely because we wish to achieve the ideal mentioned in the motion moved by the hon member for Barberton, which is to keep as many of our farmers as possible on their land.

In future we shall have to give intensive consideration to the protection of our natural resources. It will be found in the schemes we shall announce in future that this will be an inherent condition. Our people will therefore not be able to keep too much livestock and they will have to abide by norms which we shall determine and lay down scientifically, for it is of no use our helping our farmers to survive a drought in the short term and destroy our natural resources in the process.

I believe that the suggestions which the hon the Minister received yesterday, the suggestion which will also be made across the floor of this House this afternoon, and the suggestions made by the hon member for Barberton, will all be evaluated. We have already established the necessary machinery in the form of a special committee, the Jacobs Committee, which is competent to undertake such an evaluation. I believe that the State will, within the means at its disposal—the State, too, is only able to move within certain parameters—will do its utmost to help our farmers in this country.

Mr Speaker, we in these benches are glad to hear the hon the Deputy Minister adopt such a positive approach towards this important and topical motion.

Those hon members with some knowledge of North American history will be familiar with the so-called dust bowl which occurred during the 1930s and ’40s and with the disastrous effects associated with that phenomenon. The dust-bowl affected the most productive maize-growing areas of the Midwest and led to major socio-economic problems in that area. It also had important political consequences. What happened there was that a deadly combination of drought, economic depression and incorrect farming practices and methods destroyed the viability of virtually the entire farming community. This led to a mass migration of impoverished farmers and farm workers from those farms and into the towns and cities of the western states. California in particular attracted a flood of migrants. The manner in which this urbanization took place had serious consequences for all those involved. Not only did they suffer serious social upheavals but they were often exploited in the most shameful way. Large land-owning companies in the USA were quick to seize upon the misfortune of these people and they moved in to buy up the land at rock-bottom prices. This was a most depressing period in American agricultural history and, as many people will know, it is well documented in John Steinbeck’s famous novel The Grapes of Wrath.

What we are witnessing in parts of South Africa today is the creation of our own dust bowl. Our maize-growing areas face a crisis. Whole communities of farmers are staring bankruptcy in the face, and small farmers, like their American counterparts, are being hardest hit. They appear to have no other option but to leave the land and move to the towns in search of work.

How are we going to handle the socioeconomic consequences of our own dust bowl? There are already alarming reports of large numbers of White farmers leaving the land. They are either selling up or just locking their doors and moving away from the farm leaving it to fend for itself. One also hears of large numbers of Black labourers who are unemployed and have no option but to trudge along the dust roads of the Western Transvaal and other areas in a desperate and futile search for work. Are we going to wait until we are forced to harvest our own grapes of wrath or are we going to act now to avert what could be a national disaster?

It is obvious, Sir, that some kind of rescue operation has to be launched. What is important is the kind of message that the Government is going to convey to the farming community. It is in this regard that we have a small problem in connection with the wording of the motion before the House. We are entirely in sympathy with the sentiments expressed in the motion but it is important to mention that the motion desires the Government to keep the largest possible number of farmers on the land. We have sympathy with these sentiments. I personally would like to see twice the number of farmers on the land if that were possible and desirable. However, we do have to face economic realities. In this respect the hon member for Barberton clarified the position of his party and made it quite clear that we do have to look at the economics of the situation, but this needs to be reflected in the wording. In the interests of the taxpayers and of the country itself, it would not be desirable simply to keep farmers on the land for the sake of having them there. We do not want agriculture to become a State-run sheltered employment haven. If we did we would be laying ourselves open to a great deal of criticism from those who are already hostile towards agriculture and the benefits that agriculture does receive from the State. We believe that the Government is going to have to make it clear that a restructuring of the maize industry will of necessity mean the elimination of economically unviable units. However, we must also take steps to ensure that the casualties involved are kept as low as possible although sound economic policies must be the basis of all future systems. Restructuring will mean that affected farmers who cannot be accommodated in less drought-sensitive systems will have to leave the land permanently, but such restructuring must take place in an orderly fashion.

What options for aid are open? One form of aid could simply be the writing off of debt but this would create a dangerous precedent. The most obvious problem would be the commercial banks. These banks have the largest exposure to agriculture and they would have to be compensated for writeoffs. Where would this money be found? A more promising approach could be further debt consolidation, but there would have to be certain important qualifications to this approach. I would suggest the following: Firstly, intermediate and short-term debt should be consolidated and added to existing mortgages. The State would need to accept second or even third mortgage bonds to provide some measure of protection for itself. Secondly, the State would need to subsidize interest rates at a reasonable level, and the bond should be for a reasonable period of time, say 10 years. Thirdly, farmers entering this scheme would have to accept a system of credit management by a competent State department, this department to advise and to assist the farmer, and be empowered to insist on proper agro-economic practices. Fourthly, farmers on small units should be allowed, or even encouraged, to pursue part-time farming wherever this is possible. The provisions of the Land Bank, which currently prevent this, would need to be revised. This would serve to help some farmers to get back onto a firmer financial footing. It might even help others to take the first step into eventual total independence of their farming operations. Fifthly, the Department of Cooperation and Development should be encouraged to investigate the possibility of introducing its policy of labour creation on farms. This could serve to keep Black labourers on the farms until better times.

These are constructive suggestions which take the emphasis away from keeping farmers on the land simply for the sake of having them there, and focuses instead on the need to improve economic viability so that no more farmers need be lost in the future. That is what needs to be done. We want to prevent losing farmers in the future. For this reason I would like to move an amendment to the motion. It is not that we are in conflict with the sentiments of the original motion; we simply believe that our amendment will express better the sentiments which have been voiced by members on all sides of the House today. I therefore move as an amendment:

Mr Speaker, I want to tell the hon member for Barberton right at the outset that as one farmer to another, I want to thank him for the positive spirit in which he moved this motion today. If we can keep up this positive attitude, we can break a lance for agriculture in this House today.

The motion which is before the House serves to emphasize in broad outline the harsh realities which prevail in the agricultural sector at present, realities arising mainly from the destructive effect of the disastrous drought in large parts of our country. These are realities which have drastically reduced the creditworthiness of many farmers. They are realities which are bound to result in a struggle for survival on the part of many farmers in the areas affected by that disastrous drought. It is natural, therefore, that this crisis situation should have occupied the attention of the general board of the SA Agricultural Union for two full days. At the board meeting, several memoranda were submitted on the board. These memoranda had been drawn up by working committees consisting of representatives of the SA Agricultural Union and officials of the Department of Agriculture. This report is only one of those reports, because there were seven reports that were handed to the hon the Minister of Agriculture. When one looks at the reports and at the enormous amount of information which has been collected and processed and presented in a meaningful form, then one sees two very important truths emerging from this. The one is that there is very close and spontaneous co-operation between the South African Agricultural Union and the Department of Agriculture. As a farmer, I find that this gives me confidence and peace of mind in difficult crisis situations such as the one which agriculture is experiencing at the moment.

However, there is yet another important truth, and that is that in its handling of and planning for emergencies in which the South African farmer may find himself, the South African Agricultural Union has always been a major source of strength and reassurance and comfort to the farmer. I should like on this occasion to express my thanks and to convey my great appreciation to those men who serve the interests of the South African farmer with great sacrifice and motivation and with great distinction.

However, I want to come back to these reports. On the basis of one of these reports dealing with the summer rainfall region, I want to try to identify the problem situation very briefly on the basis of a few statistics. At least 50% of our country’s maize is produced in this area. On 15 February this year, the estimated harvest in this area was 1,07 million tons, as against the average harvest, over a five-year period, of 4,8 million tons. At the general board meeting of the SAAU, agricultural leaders and persons from Nampo alleged that the estimated harvest in this region was under 500 000 tons. This is less than 10% of a normal crop. This problem has caused a chain reaction. It is calculated that the gross loss of income to the maize farmers and the farmers practising field husbandry in that region was R49 million in 1981-82. In 1982-83 it was R530 million, and is calculated, in terms of the 1983 producer price, that the loss in the 1984 financial year will be R620 million. These losses have resulted in greater deferred debts for the maize farmers in that region. Those deferred debts amounted to R41,9 million in 1979, R153 million in 1982, R395 million in 1983, and it is estimated that the deferred debts at the eight co-operatives in that area will be R667 million on 31 October 1984. At the same time, the financing cost or interest paid by the farmers on the deferred debts at the eight co-operatives has risen from R16,3 million in 1979 to R45,4 million in 1982 and R64,5 million in 1983, while it is estimated that the interest at those eight co-operatives will rise to R115 million in 1984. It is clear that these three factors in respect of which I have furnished the statistics are having an effect on the creditworthiness of the farmer. No wonder, then, that the burden of debt at these three co-operatives is composed as follows: Accounts within the normal credit period accounted for 16,7% of the total outstanding debt: accounts exceeding the normal credit period by up to 50% accounted for 17,6% of the total debt; while accounts exceeding the normal credit period by more than 50% represented 65,7% of the total debt of members. It is clear, therefore, that the credit-worthiness of these farmers has been so drastically reduced that they cannot win this struggle for survival with their own financial resources alone. Therefore this motion is quite correct in calling for special measures.

These special measures have been considered by the general board. I have the relevant document with me. It is a comprehensive document which was explained to the hon the Minister on the occasion of his visit to the general board. The hon the Minister gave the undertaking that this document would be submitted to the Cabinet very soon, that it would be considered as soon as possible and that decisions would be taken in this regard. Since I was a party to the decision taken by the general board, I do not wish to elaborate any further on these proposals, except for addressing a few remarks in passing to the hon member for Barberton, who spoke about the effect of the high interest rate pattern and rightly pointed out the great danger of the forced sale of farms within the area concerned, which would undermine the security basis of the value of the person’s farm. I want to assure the hon member for Barberton that these possibilities are covered in the proposals that will be submitted to the Cabinet.

I want to make two further remarks in passing. It is quite clear that the special measures that are being requested are in fact emergency measures which are going to make heavy demands on our country’s financial means but which will at the same time make heavy demands on the administrative abilities of the Department of Agriculture as well as the Government. I want to tell the hon the Minister of Agriculture today that he has been given the assurance by the general board that the SA Agricultural Union and the co-operative movement will be only too willing to help with the administration of these aid schemes. We realize that we must also accept responsibility when the State is helping us to that extent.

There is another matter which I should just like to touch on. In saying this, I endorse the remarks made by the hon member for Barberton. This problem is of such magnitude that it is not only an agricultural problem, but one in respect of which solutions are being requested from the entire country and all its people. I believe that our point of departure should be the national motto that we must enable the South African farmer to survive in the interests of a stable and orderly South Africa. For this we need the co-operation of everyone in this House, of the entire agricultural sector and of society as a whole. I take pleasure in supporting the motion.

Mr Speaker, I like to speak after the hon member for Ceres. I am very glad to hear that the general council of the SA Agricultural Union has, in fact, paid attention to the aspect of the capital basis of the farmer, which the hon member for Barberton raised, and has made certain proposals in this regard. That is, of course, the critical point. If we do not take the necessary steps in that regard, the whole industry is going to collapse.

†That is the point in the hon member for Barberton’s speech on which I want to elaborate. It is a critical point. Something like that must never be allowed because it would create a situation in which also viable farmers, the ones who were not on the point of selling, would be equally affected because the value of their assets, in the eyes of commercial banks and other institutions, could quite easily be halved overnight. They would be placed in a critically dangerous situation.

I should like to say to the hon member for Albany that I am quite certain that members of the agricultural groups of all parties had in mind the concept of economic units. I was going to mention the aspect of diversification. It is quite obvious that in respect of mono-cultivation in certain areas—for example, where people are entirely dependent on maize-farming—they have been extremely hard hit. It would appear that in order to create a more stable situation diversification should be one of the factors looked at very seriously. I am quite certain that the hon member for Barberton also meant that, while the greatest possible number of farmers should be kept on the land, that would obviously only relate to those who have a reasonable chance of continuing on an economic basis.

Perhaps I should use this opportunity to say that I believe that the hon the Minister and his colleague, the Deputy Minister, having had these portfolios thrust upon them in what is quite obviously the worse drought in living memory as far as South Africa is concerned, have an enormous burden to bear. The hon the Deputy Minister was grey before he started and he is going a nice shade of white now. The hon the Minister in any event still has his luxurious locks.

I have already started going grey.

There are some marvellous medications on the market these days which make one look younger. [Interjections.] I must say they have the respect and support of all hon members for the manner in which they are handling these matters. They have remained calm and are always accessible to hon members. We quite obviously have a team here which is looking at the whole question on a very practical basis. At the same time they have a tremendous workload. That also applies to members of their department, and in particular to the Land Bank. I know our branch in Port Elizabeth has had some really “hairy” times when they have had to work right through the night. In so doing, they have managed to reduce a considerable backlog to a very small backlog. These people have put their shoulder to the wheel and have done a marvellous job in respect of a crisis situation. I do not think they ever really hear just how much it is appreciated. I should therefore like to take this opportunity of saying that in farming circles it is appreciated very much. That goes for the department and the Land Bank, for their, shall we say, general speeding up of things.

I do not think the Department of Agriculture as such is known for its alacrity in reacting or attending to matters. I should like to deal with that aspect of it because, whilst not appearing ungrateful I do believe the drought came along when the farmer was already on his knees in many cases. The problem was there already. I think here of decreases in income and other economic aspects. Of course the drought compounded the problems enormously. To substantiate the statement, I should like to point out that the net income from farming in 1983 was R184 million compared with R2 672 million in 1981. The interest payments over the same period reflect an enormous increase of R542 million, increasing from R323 million to R865 million. Apart from the interest payments, input costs have risen from R2 663 million in 1981 to R3 594 million in 1983. In terms of practical day-to-day things forming the real indicator is that over the same period the farmer who had to spend 82c to realize a rand in 1981, now has to spend R2,90 in order to earn the same net rand. That sort of situation has been aggravated by droughts, “maar hulle was aan die kom”, and I think it is fair comment to say that the reaction time of the Department of Agriculture when these aspects are brought to their attention by organized agriculture, will have to be improved because we cannot allow this sort of time-lag before we take remedial measures. We will have to introduce a system enabling us to react more quickly—not to the drought but to the economic aspect. I see the hon the Minister has a big frown on his face, but I am not asking for a quicker reaction to the drought but to the economic ills that became clearly evident before the drought.

This department really represents a Cinderella industry, when it comes to the budget, in terms of voting money for research, for extension officers and for long-term planning. That field is essentially and solely the Government’s responsibility, and I maintain that we should not allow ourselves to become that Cinderella once again in terms of those vital aspects, quite apart from the drought. I believe that we must hear the voice of organized agriculture sooner and that we should react sooner. We look forward to the release of the White Paper on agriculture with great anticipation. In the parlous state in which the industry now finds itself, we believe that half-measures will simply mean throwing good money after bad.

Another important matter is that, in our approach to solving the problem, we should also clearly realize that we have to keep the prices of our products down in order to be able to fulfil our role in our regional African strategy, and to compete on international export markets. This can only be done by reducing input costs and, of course, as I have already said, one of escalating input costs now is the amount of interest that is being paid, and this will be compounded enormously by the drought loans and the debts people have incurred. I therefore cannot but feel that the question of subsidization of interest in order to bring about a real decrease in input costs is going to be one of the chief factors in assessing how to continue production at an economic level and still allow us to compete and to fulfil our role in Africa in regard to our strategy towards our neighbouring countries and to remain a prime producer of food for the region.

We support this motion as we believe that the intention, as has already been stated, was to give hon members the opportunity to air their feelings about the agricultural situation. The detail in terms of the wording is not important but the intention is clear and we hope that these discussions will assist in formulating the vital schemes that will soon have to be applied in agriculture to rescue it from an economic disaster, as it is already on the verge of such a disaster.

Mr Speaker, I believe the hon member for King William’s Town made a very positive contribution. Nor did he detract from the very good spirit prevailing here today. Moreover, I believe that the unanimity that prevails in this House at the moment is perhaps further evidence of the major dilemma faced by agriculture. It also shows that this matter is being approached with the utmost seriousness by all parties in this House.

In contrast to the floods which occurred in the north eastern parts of the country, widespread and disastrous drought conditions have for three years now prevailed in the western summer rainfall regions of South Africa. I believe that in the western summer rainfall regions this drought is far worse than the drought of 1933. It is true that towards the end of the ’70s and in the early ’80s we had good years. However it has been evident for a long time that at the end of a series of good years the financial position of the farmers of South Africa has not been favourable. Well-known agricultural economists such as Prof Groenewald and Dr Louw warned at the time that South African agriculture was heading for a situation of crisis. Now this disastrous drought has occurred, and this has given rise to the whole situation that we and agriculture in this country are faced with at present.

However, I should like to confine myself in particular to the maize industry. I believe that the maize industry has been the greatest victim of this drought we are experiencing at the moment. Now, the situation in regard to this matter—and the hon the Minister of Agriculture will also be aware of this—is that one cannot simply get hold of a book or a document to determine what the exact position is of the maize industry specifically, because South African statistics relate to agriculture as a whole. Nevertheless one would like to know what the position of the maize industry is at the moment. How much money do the maize farmers owe? Are we in a position to redeem that debt, and are our farmers in a position to harvest again this year? I have consulted various sources but in the nature of the matter one cannot find an answer which could be regarded as authoritative. Nevertheless, I have tried to determine how much we owe. I can only do so by way of inference. A very major study would be needed to get a precise answer. Of course, I do not know whether agricultural unions and co-operatives could determine this specifically, but I believe it would require a major study. Perhaps it would be as well if such a study could be carried out at some stage to determine what the exact position is in the maize industry.

By way of inference, and taking into account, too, the figures provided here by the hon member for Ceres, and further taking into account the fact that nowadays the pattern has evolved that the banks are owed somewhat more than the co-operative, and that the banks are therefore the major creditors, one draws the conclusion that at this stage the maize industry owes approximately R4 000 million. At the present stage the harvest is estimated at 2,8 million tons. If the price of maize is to be R250 per ton this year, the harvest will yield a total of R700 million. In the meantime, however, we already owe R4 000 million. Accordingly, after the crop has been harvested and our debt has been paid, we shall still owe R3 300 million.

Is that your proposal as far as the price is concerned?

Yes, that is my proposal as regards the price as well. [Interjections.] I merely mention this in passing. The hon the Minister should not draw his conclusions so quickly. I would have made my plea for this proposal more gently, and worked things up to a climax more slowly, if he had only waited. As I have already said, our debt will still amount to R3 300 million, whereas we are in the situation that it is necessary to sow the next crop. That crop will cost us R1 800 million. Therefore, if we review the matter next year after the crop has been harvested and before our debt has been paid, we shall find that we owe R5 100 million, but that in the meantime interest has been added to that debt. If one takes the interest at an average of 15%, that amount increases by a further R700 million. Therefore, if we further adjust the price next year to keep pace with the increase in production cost then the profit on that crop next year will be insufficient to pay the interest that will be payable by the maize industry, not even if that crop amounts to 10 000 tons. Then, too, the question is: What are our chances of achieving a harvest of 10 million tons? We know from the statistics that in good years over the past 15 years we have on only four occasions succeeded in achieving a harvest of 10 million tons. Therefore I say that with such a harvest and with such a price we shall not be able to pay that interest. Therefore we shall be worse off at this stage next year than we are at the moment.

If, for argument’s sake, no interest were levied on this money, what would happen? In that case it would still take us 8½ years to pay off our debt. If the interest were to be reduced to 8% it would take the maize farmers 20 years to pay off the debt they are saddled with at present. Therefore we in the maize industry are in the position that we have buy our farmers again from scratch. Both the hon the Minister and I are getting on in years, and it is not a very pleasant thought that one will have to pay off that debt for another 20 years. It is a hard and wearisome struggle that lies ahead, but that is what the position is.

Therefore I think that we have reached the stage when we know that the function of agriculture in South Africa as manifested over the past number of decades is that it is primarily a provider of food and secondarily a provider of employment. As far as the maize industry is concerned we cannot perform either of those two functions at this stage. We cannot produce enough for domestic consumption and it has already been pointed out that due to the financial situation a major problem is developing in the rural areas in the western part of South Africa, in that it is simply no longer possible to keep the Black labour force on the farms. This has an enormous potential for causing social and other problems.

It has already been pointed out by other hon members that this situation we are faced with may also have another very important consequence. This is that if, in the districts mentioned, between 2% and 3% of the farms were to come on the market, there would not be sufficient farmer buyers and, as we know, the professional people are not keen to buy maize farms. On such farms one gets dusty and one gets one’s hands full of grease, and the professional men prefer to farm among the trees and the bushes. They will not be buyers for those farms. It can only be the farmers, and there are no farmers able to buy. If between 2% and 3% of the farms were to come on the market, the prices would plummet, and such a situation has the potential of unleashing a depression in South Africa. The rural businessmen, like the attorney who has lent other people’s money to farmers, cannot collect that money, the medical practitioners say they are no longer being paid, and certain business enterprises have already stopped doing business. The result is that the whole rural structure and economy is jeopardized, and this has a very ugly potential. Therefore I think it is as well that this House should agree unanimously today that extraordinary steps must be taken. I agree with the hon member that economic measures must apply, but if we are going to permit the land market to hit a low during this year and in this situation, it will have an effect which entailsanother economic implication that we must also take into account.

Now one must ask oneself: What are the solutions? We know that the agricultural unions, that co-operatives, the department and other experts have given a great deal of attention to this matter in recent times. However, in all humility I, too, should like to express a few ideas about solutions for this matter. The position at present is that the maize industry is in so parlous a state—I think the hon member for Ceres pointed this out—that many of the farmers no longer have any security. Thus they are no longer able to obtain the requisites necessary to plant a new crop. The point is that that first step must now be taken in order to make a start again.

I believe that this problem has assumed such proportions that it cannot be expected of the Government to solve the problem alone. I say in all fairness that I believe that it is impossible for any Government, with the best will in the world, to neutralize the effects of the force and power of nature. Nowhere in the world can one find a Government that is strong enough to do that. I believe one must understand that. I believe that the Government cannot be expected to solve this problem alone. Wider co-operation is necessary. The broader public of South Africa and the broader national economy will have to do their bit in dealing with this problem.

We know that if the interest rate is 8% it will take us 20 years to repay the debt. Therefore I believe that something will have to be done—steps must be taken in this regard—to bring the interest rate that farmers have to pay, down to a maximum of 8%. As far as this is concerned the financial institutions of South Africa have a considerable interest rate in this, in that at present the banks are the major creditors since at least 25% of the debt is owing to them. If they bring their agricultural interest rate in these areas down to 8% they are going to lose on what they would have obtained, but I think that they would lose less than if they were to keep the interest rate at its present level and the whole structure were to collapse in ruins. Prices would then drop and the banks would lose everything they have now. Therefore it is in their interest to consider reducing the interest rate in those areas to 8% so that we can have a breathing space again.

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister and the Government to take that first step towards getting another harvest. The stock farmers have various phases. I have been representing the Lichtenburg constituency in this House for the past 14 years, but this year I found out how this drought assistance works for the first time, because our district has never before been a drought-stricken district. We have never even asked for this before. We are now in that position and we have now found out how it works. We know that it works by phases. When the cattle farmers get to phase 4, they are subsidized by 50% per cow or ewe to keep them alive.

I think we are now entering the fourth year of drought. The Government must start with phase 4 as far as the western production areas are concerned. It must say that it is going to subsidize those farmers by 15%, not to obtain harvests of 10 tons, but only to obtain a harvest of, say, 2,5 tons. To be able to achieve a harvest of this size the Government will have to subsidize the farmers by 50% because then the people will be able to take that first step to enable them to carry on and stay in production.

In the third place I think that the consumer, too, will have to play a role. This year we are consumers of maize. Notwithstanding the fact that we are in fact maize growers, this year maize has to be imported at enormous cost. These imports will have to be subsidized. I simply cannot see how the price of maize can be set at less than R250 per ton this year. If the hon the Minister does what I ask, he will be giving some hope to the men who have to go and buy at those prices this year, to encourage them to get going again and to produce for next year, because then there is hope that in 20 years’ time they will pay their debts if the interest rate is reduced to 8%.

I shall be asked where the Government is to obtain the money to introduce the phase 4 subsidies for the maize producer. In reply to such a question, I think it is necessary to say that this must be budgeted for in the first place. There is something else, too, that I want to suggest. Unfortunately it is the case that the Development Bank has begun to function. South Africa is a member country and I think that in this first year South Africa must approach the Development Bank in order to find how much it can borrow there to keep this industry in production. We must bear in mind how many Black people are going to lose their jobs. The Development Bank cannot create new employment opportunities equivalent to those that people have at the moment. Therefore, they must retain those job opportunities. Therefore there is merit in approaching the Development Bank now to see how much we can borrow there in order to deal with this problem.

It will only be a little.

It will be a little, but every little bit helps. Even if we only get until Saturday, we shall be satisfied.

Ideas have also been exchanged with regard to the long term. I wish to advance an idea with regard to the maize industry which will affect the industry in the long term. It concerns the use of fertilizers. With reference to the exchange that took place between Prof Fölscher and the fertilizer industry, we heard that the fertilizer industry conceded that only 35 kg of plant food is needed to produce 2,5 tons of maize. It is interesting that over the past 28 years there have only been three occasions on which we have produced an average of more than 2,5 tons of maize per ha. In 1973-74 we produced on average precisely 2,5 tons of maize per ha, in 1979-80 we produced the same amount and in 1980-81, we produced 3,17 tons per ha. If we had applied an average of only 35 kg of plant food this means that in only one year out of 28 did we apply little. Because in previous years we did not produce an average of 2,5 tons of maize, this means that there were probably reserves. From the exchange that took place it was quite clear that we are at present applying between 120 and 140 kg of plant food per ha. Therefore we are applying hopelessly too much fertilizer. This is a matter that must be approached very judiciously, because in this regard there is a potential to save a great deal in production cost while maintaining delivery of production. I therefore contend that it is quite wrong for the man who manufactures the fertilizer and has an interest in the industry to be the farmer’s adviser when a decision must be taken as to how much fertilizer is to be applied. Accordingly I wish to make an appeal in this regard in favour of the department. In my opinion this work must be done by the department, not even by an agricultural co-operative. The department is the objective body whose only aim is to ensure that there is maximum production in South Africa at the lowest possible cost. Therefore I think it is quite wrong that fertilizer companies should give farmers advice on the amount of fertilizer that needs to be applied. We do not wish to operate on an undemocratic basis, but will have to put our heads together to determine how we are going to take that function away from the man who also has a financial interest in the matter and put it where it belongs, viz with the department that carries out the research and where information is available. The farmer can rely without reservation on the advice he receives from the department.

In conclusion I wish to say that since we are now in a crisis situation, we shall have to stay calm and plan carefully. We have now asked for assistance, but one thing is as plain as a pikestaff. However well intended, all the help provided by the authorities, through whichever channel it is provided, is still a burden. If it is given to farmers free of charge, then the taxpayer or someone else has to pay for it. Therefore it is necessarily a burden. The only help that is not a burden is help from Above. We firmly believe that the rain will come again and that good times will return. The maize farmer knows and firmly believes this. Therefore he has not lost courage but is, unfortunately, in the position that he is unable to take the first step. All we must do is enable him to take that first step. The rains will come again and the land will give back tenfold what they put into it. We in South Africa shall prosper again and in the meantime we shall surmount the problems. At this point we must consider carefully how we are going to surmount this crisis we are faced with and once again harvest large crops, export our products and make our contribution in the world.

Mr Speaker, I recently toured the Western Transvaal and Northwestern Free State areas with the hon member for Lichtenburg, and other members of this house. I think he has clearly outlined to hon members today the seriousness and the enormity of the problems being faced by farmers in these areas. Unfortunately, I do not think that there is yet an awareness or realization on the part of the man in the street of the crisis we have brewing there. It is a crisis which will in fact affect all of us and I think that the Press could do a better job to publicize what is happening. Money for assistance will eventually have to come out of the taxpayers’ pockets or from State revenue, and the better informed the man in the street is about the problems there, the less resentful he will feel when he is eventually called upon to foot the bill.

The previous speakers in this debate have clearly sketched what the present situation is. They have come with a number of suggestions as short-term solutions to the problem. There is one suggestion I would like to emphasize, which has been mentioned by one or two speakers today. That is that assistance granted to farmers, as the hon member for Barberton has said, should be granted on an individual basis and also on a conditional basis. When I say on a conditional basis, I mean on the basis that the farmer should produce a farm plan and a sound cash-flow analysis so that he can at least show how he is going to get out of the trouble. There will certainly be farmers—and I am sorry for them—who will not be able to get out of trouble, and giving assistance to them will merely prolong the agony. I believe that, we should work on the basis where each farmer produces his own plan and cash-flow analysis. There are people in the department and also private people outside who could assist with the implementation of the scheme in this manner.

I would now like to address myself to a more long-term solution to the situation. We are all aware that Nampo, which represents the maize farmers, have made a number of suggestions of how they believe the maize industry should be run. This is obviously, in the long term, aimed at putting maize farmers and the maize industry on a more sound footing. We are all aware, and I am sure the hon the Minister is also aware, that they are presently advocating a quota system. I am sure that there has been a lot of pressure on the hon the Minister to approve such a system.

Nampo have highlighted the following advantages which they foresee will flow from the system. There would, firstly, be a change in the production pattern. If such a quota were freely exchangeable on the market, the argument is that production would eventually move to the less risky areas and farmers could then of course shift to more drought-resistant crops such as sunflower and sorghum and could re-introduce the animal factor into their farms. They also believe that with a quota system the surplus maize over and above the quota would cause feed-lots to reappear on the farms and this would of course provide the diversification needed in some of these areas.

Many of the reasons advanced are actually appealing at a first superficial and uncritical glance. However, I would like to plead with the hon the Minister that he should not accede to requests to implement a quota system. There are many problems associated with a quota system and I want to mention a few. Firstly, once a quota is implemented, the Minister will have no further control over maize prices whatsoever. Depending on what the suppliers are restricted to, farmers will in fact be able to charge what they like and the consumer will eventually have to pay. Secondly, a quota system represents a windfall gain to farmers who get the quota now, but for new farmers who come into the industry in later years it represents a production cost. Thirdly, such a quota system would have serious effects on other sectors of agriculture. Farmers will look for alternative crops and we will then have farmers producing more sorghum, sunflowers and wheat. The next thing we would find would be that other sectors of agriculture would also start calling, as has already happened, for the implementation of quota systems. Finally, a quota system is very difficult to police. If one is going to have a quota system with a high domestic price and a lower price for the export market, one must be able to stop leakage between the two markets and that is virtually impossible. There will always be the temptation for people to pay a slight premium on the export price and use that maize. It is virtually impossible to police.

We should like to suggest an alternative for the long term. This has been touched on by the hon member for Lichtenburg as well when he spoke about fertilizer. I should like to refer again to the old problem of input prices—I can see the hon the Minister getting ready for it. We have said here before that farmers should be able to buy their inputs at world-related prices. That will make them competitive and it will mean that we do not need a quota system. I can say that I have great sympathy with Nampo in the current situation and with the fact that they see this as the best way out. I also fully appreciate that in some cases it is not possible to open up the markets. Certain undertakings have been given to different manufacturers in this country. However, in cases where it is not possible, could the hon the Minister not consider subsidizing those inputs at source? That will have two effects. Firstly, if one starts with a cheaper input, the input price will not be multiplied upwards through the production process. It can also result in lower food prices. If the hon the Minister would subsidize at source, it could also mean that he could get some of the money required for that by reducing the final consumer subsidies at the other end. I should like to hear the hon the Minister’s comments on that. I believe it is important.

The interest subsidy is part of the input subsidy.

But I do not believe it brings the inputs down to competitive levels with the imported products.

There is also something we should like the hon the Minister to investigate at this stage—it is far too complex for it to be implemented straight away. We believe the hon the Minister should undertake an investigation of the practicability of introducing a futures-market system in South Africa. This could in fact operate for maize and any agricultural product which can be stored. It works in other countries.

Like the United States.

It does work there. It has worked there for a long time.

That does not mean that it will work in South Africa.

I am asking the hon the Minister to investigate it. I am not saying that he should in fact implement it. We are asking him to give it serious consideration. In the meantime we believe that the inherent problems we have in the maize industry are to a large extent due to the one-channel fixed-price scheme we have. We have to move away from that scheme. I believe that the maize producers themselves are in favour of this, provided we can open up the market on inputs as well. One cannot open up one sector of the market and leave the others closed. Is there any reason why, in the place of that scheme, we cannot as an interim measure have a floor-price scheme and an “agterskot” at some later stage when the crop is sold? In a free-market system prices must be allowed to vary with supply and this is probably the best way of bringing that about.

As I said earlier on, we have complete sympathy with the motion before us today. We look forward to seeing what sort of package the hon the Minister can produce to help farmers. I must say that I am glad that I am not in the hon the Minister’s shoes, but we on this side of the House will assist him as much as we can.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South referred to various matters concerning which the hon the Minister will no doubt furnish him with an adequate reply. I just wish to say a few words about a matter he raised in connection with Nampo and the so-called quota system. He expressed opposition to it. I want to refer him to the hon the Minister’s reply during a Nampo congress in Johannesburg last year which was attended by the hon the Minister and a group of farming MP’s. On that occasion the hon the Minister said that the matter was entirely in the hands of Nampo and that they had to discuss that with the farmers and then had to come back with their decisions. The Marketing Board and other boards will also contribute an input before a final decision is reached. Therefore I think the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South need not be so concerned. The hon the Minister will deal with the matter when it comes up.

This afternoon I should like to devote my speech to the present situation in the drought-stricken areas. To begin with I want to say to the hon member for Barberton that I am very grateful that he motivated his motion in a very responsible way. The same applies to the hon member for Lichtenburg. In this regard I want to associate myself with the chairman of our agricultural study group, the hon member for Ceres, and at the same time support the motion. I just wish to add that this House should also take full cognizance of the assistance already provided by the Government in this regard.

When one looks at the assistance schemes that the Government has already implemented over the past year I want to say that there are few governments in the world that would do so much for their farmers. Australia, too, has experienced a drought, and there drought assistance amounted to $1 per sheep and, what is more, the farmer had to slaughter the sheep. It is only when one looks at the figures that one realizes how extensive the assistance has been. From 1 April 1983 to 31 December 1983 the Agricultural Credit Board paid out R124 million in the form of the normal assistance schemes. Fifty three million rands of this amount went towards production debts alone, consolidated over 22 years. As far as the phased drought-aid scheme is concerned, the Department has paid out almost R61 million from 1 April 1983 up to the present. This assistance has enabled farmers to preserve the nucleus of their herds. I want to extend my sincerest thanks to the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture this afternoon for having also extended these phased drought-assistance schemes to the maize-producing areas. This has enabled those of our maize farmers who are also stock farmers to preserve the nucleus of their herds. Up to 31 January 1981 the Land Bank spent R439 million on direct long-term drought assistance, utilized for the consolidation of farmers’ debts. Of this amount R191 million has been paid to farmers’ co-operatives for production debts. During the period 1 May 1983 to 31 January 1984 the Land Bank granted short-term loans to co-operatives amounting to R4 250 000. This amount includes crop financing amounting to R1 309 000. On 31 January 1984 another amount of R3 100 million was owed to the Land Bank in regard to these loans. Thus the Land Bank has given co-operatives considerable short-term assistance. Therefore I am justified in saying that the Government, for its part, did what it could to ensure that the farmer was able to survive the 1983 drought.

However, Sir, we did not expect that the 1984 crop, too, would be destroyed by the searing drought. This is the problem that the Government is confronted with again today and this is why certain steps have already been taken. We realize that the assistance that will have to be given to agriculture this year will have to be of such a nature that the farmer must, in the first instance, stay on his farm—that is the point that the hon member for Lichtenburg also made—and, in the second instance, that he must be placed in a position to produce a fresh crop and also meet his obligations.

It was my privilege and that of a group of my colleagues to visit the drought-ravaged areas together with Nampo. During this visit I was impressed by the extent of this tremendous drought and the number of problems arising out of it. In the process the financial situation of the farmer has deteriorated tremendously. Six of the eight co-operatives in the western region have the problem that 22% of their members have already used up in credit more than 50% of the real security value of their land. In the ten years from 1971 up to and including 1981, the operating debts have almost tripled. The estimate for February 1983 was R6 000 million as against the estimated capital assets of R33 000 million. This means a liability/asset ratio of 18%, which is not so bad, but cash flow is the real problem. The assets are there but not the liquidity.

Another point which gives rise to concern is the steep rise in the burden of interest to agriculture, to which several hon members have already referred. However, I should like to furnish some figures in this regard. Between 1970 and 1982 the burden of interest increased by 961%. Last year interest was, next to cattle fodder, the biggest single item of expenditure in agriculture. Apart from that, agriculture is having to make increasing use of loans which, at the present interest rates, are seriously limiting the profitability of agriculture as a whole. The present financial situation of the farmer has meant that many cannot even obtain credit with which to obtain their current monthly necessities of life. Various social problems result from this. Farmers’ wives have had to go out to earn a monthly income in those cases where the husband has not possessed the necessary qualifications. Moreover, certain farmers are finding it difficult to pay their Black workers their monthly wages, and several Black workers have already been dismissed. This means that there are many unemployed Black people around, and I believe that this could give rise to several problems.

I have also encountered depression among our farmers and I wish to caution that irresponsible people must not exploit this situation. Our farmers still have faith, and if the Government provides assistance I believe that they will again lift their heads and we shall again prosper. I believe that in these times everyone must try to direct his thoughts towards devising measures and making proposals as to how we can help our farming community out of trouble. I should also like to express a few ideas in this regard.

For the most part, financing in agriculture is based on the land value of a farm. Accordingly I wish to ask that we find ways and means of preventing the price of the farmer’s land from dropping to a level below the present market value. I also wish to ask that, if possible, forced sales should be reduced to the minimum and in this regard I associate myself with the hon member for Barberton.

In the second place I wish to ask that more funds be made available for the consolidation of farmers’ debts under the Land Bank’s 22-year scheme, so that a larger proportion of the debt for which consolidation is requested may be consolidated. At present a proportion is being discharged, but the greater part still has to be borne by the commercial bank. Accordingly the farmers’ debt simply carries on growing, due to the high interest rate.

A scheme will also have to be considered in accordance with which part of the farmers’ interest on a commercial bank loan can be subsidized. This subsidy on interest will have to be sufficient to bring interest on commercial bank loans into line with the present Land Bank rate of 11%. A subsidy of this nature would prevent the debts owed by farmers to commercial banks from escalating further. I also wish to appeal to the commercial banks to co-operate to enable us to guide our farmers through these difficult times.

Consideration will also have to be given to enlarging the subsidy on interest on bridging debts with co-operatives. The present allocation of R50 000 for credit on production requisites, which is dealt with by the Financial Assistance Division, will possibly also have to be revised. Due to rising costs it has become necessary for us to reconsider this amount.

I wish to ask that in deserving cases, apart from the customary loans for production requisites, loans should also be granted to producers for the payment of the wages and rations of their farm workers and for their own necessities of life. I also wish to ask that in order to help alleviate the cash flow problem of the farmers in the drought-stricken areas, an appeal be made to Escom to suspend temporarily the monthly extension fees payable by farmers in drought-stricken areas. I suggest that the period within which those extension fees are payable, be extended and added to the end of that term; that is to say, that it be suspended for approximately a year and the term extended by a year.

In my opinion incentives are essential if we are to keep the farmer who still has an enterprising spirit, in agriculture. Benefits such as those given to industry for settlement in certain preference areas in accordance with the National Physical Development Plan will also have to be made available to our farmers, because agriculture is still the single biggest provider of employment and must remain so, and also because the present drought shows that agriculture is of the utmost strategic importance as far as food is concerned.

I wish to conclude by thanking the hon the Minister and the Deputy Minister for the patience, courage and zeal that they are displaying in these times. I want to give them the assurance that the members of the farming group of the NP will support and back them up, because one cause unites us all the cause of agriculture in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke. I also want to thank him for supporting the motion moved by the hon member for Barberton. Listening to the various speeches that have been made this afternoon, I became deeply aware of the distress suffered by our farmers.

Perhaps, in a lighter vein, I should recount a joke about how desperate one can be, although we are not being pessimistic about the situation this afternoon. A certain man walked into a co-operative and bought 12 hammers at R3 each. A week later he was back and he bought another 12 hammers at R4 each. He went on doing this week after week, and every week he paid more for the hammers, until he eventually bought 12 hammers at R8 each. Then the salesman in the shop grew very curious and asked him: “Sir, you have been buying hammers for weeks. What are you doing with all the hammers?” “I am selling the hammers,” the man replied. The salesman then wanted to know who was buying so many hammers and at what price the man was selling his hammers. “I am selling the hammers at R2 each,” the man replied. The salesman then put it to him that the cheapest hammers he had bought at the co-operatives had cost R3 each, to which the man replied: “Well, you see, it is like this. I used to farm, but I found that this business was much more profitable than farming.” [Interjections.]

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, this is not the attitude that has been displayed in the speeches we have heard in this House this afternoon. Several criteria could be used to ascertain the financial position of farmers in South Africa. The best system, of course, would be one by means of which the position—including the financial position—of the farmer could be monitored every month at farm level. Unfortunately, however, we do not have information of this nature available in South Africa. Consequently, we must make use of so-called macro or general information to ascertain the direction, the changes and the deviations in agriculture. From the general information which is available, we find that the years between 1970 and 1975 were fairly good ones for agriculture in South Africa. Since 1976, however, the analyses indicate a deterioration which has been accelerated by the present drought years. Of course, the present conditions in agriculture must not be blamed solely on the drought, but also on the long-term financial decline of the farmers. Their general ability to survive set-backs has diminished drastically, as a result of this long-term financial decline to which I have just referred.

Since 1975 and 1976, the prices of agricultural products have been rising more slowly than the prices of farming requirements. This gap is steadily growing. In spite of the fact that there are very good signs of efficiency, the financial position is still deteriorating. In this way, the producer prices of agricultural products increased by 150% between 1976 and 1983, as against an increase of 208% in the prices of farming requirements. The situation is not quite the same as in the case of the hammers, but the prices of agricultural products went up by 150% over that period, as against 208% in the case of farming requirements. In the period between 1970 and 1972, farming costs amounting to 59 cents had to be incurred to produce a gross farming revenue of R1, while in the period 1980 to 1982, about 67 cents in farming costs had to be incurred to yield a farming revenue of R1. During the period 1970 to 1982, farming costs showed an annual increase of 17,4%, as against 15,6% in respect of gross farming revenue and only 13,5% in respect of net farming revenue. This situation has had a depressing effect on the financial position of the farmers. Not only has the profit margin of the producer shrunk; his ability to finance his own operations has likewise declined. The net farming revenue dropped by another 41,4% in 1983. This was scaled down to R1 184 million, as against R2 021 million in 1982. The total burden of debt went up from R1 384 million in 1970 to R5 776 in 1982.

What was the position on 30 June last year? The burden of debt at that time was R6 413,6 million, and this figure does not include the recent deferred debts resulting from the drought. If the composition of the agricultural burden of debt is analysed, it appears that in recent years, the farmers have had to depend mainly on short-term credit. This credit grew from 28% in 1970 to 51% in 1982, and this dependence of the farmer on external cash short-term credit not only increased the risk, but had a very adverse effect, especially in bad years when there were crop failures. This credit also has to be financed at high interest rates.

The harmful effects of the present drought must therefore be seen against the background of a long-term deterioration in the financial situation of agriculture. High production costs and crop failures, which, as I have said, have to be financed at high interest rates, have made it virtually impossible for many farmers to recover.

The drought has almost disastrous cost implications for the livestock industry. Last year we had the situation that the prices of fodder rose by up to 500%. It was not at all unusual to pay R5 and more for a bale of chaff and R15 for a bale of lucerne. Because of the lack of pasturage and feeding costs in stock grazing areas, slaughterings from the veld and sales to the feed-lots rose above the normal expected level. The result was that we had the situation last year that 469 000 tons of beef was available from local sources, compared with the advance estimate of 461 000 tons for 1983. In the case of mutton, we had 136 000 tons available, compared with the estimated 118 000 tons.

As a result of the continuing drought, a quarter of the surface of South Africa is a disaster-stricken area today, and this is the situation with which the hon the Minister and his department are faced. That area extends from Messina in the Northern Transvaal to Hopetown in the North-Western Cape. This is an area comprising approximately 34 million ha.

The cash flow problems, together with increased deferred debts, plus the other normal debts of farmers, have to be financed at these high interest rates. The burden of interest on agricultural debts increased form R74 million in 1970 to R865 million in 1983. The payment of interest is at present the largest single item of expenditure in agriculture. It is even more than the expenditure on fuel and fertilizer.

Analyses have shown that the farmers in summer sowing areas will need at least five to six years—an hon colleague spoke of eight years—to recover from the financial set-back they have suffered because of the drought. It is essential that the causes of the financial deterioration of agriculture be thoroughly analysed and that steps be taken as a matter of urgency to rectify the situation.

Even if the prospects with regard to crops and prices became favourable, even if the climatic conditions returned to normal, the farmer would still be under financial pressure for many years to come. Because agriculture is so closely integrated with the economy, the present agricultural situation is not only the problem of the farmer, but it creates problems for all South Africa’s inhabitants. That is why it is important that steps be taken urgently, in the short term as well, to keep the farmer on his farm, not only in his own interests, but also in the interests of all who are nourished from this soil.

We are grateful for the help that is being and will be provided by the authorities. We trust that the hon the Minister’s proposed White Paper on agricultural policy will identify important directions in the interests of agriculture in South Africa. Such a longterm policy could simplify the lives of farmers.

Mr Speaker, I immediately want to tell the hon member for Barberton that I think that the motion he introduced this afternoon is a very timely one in the circumstances in which South African agriculture finds itself today. What the motion amounts to is that the House is deeply concerned, that special measures should be adopted and that the whole position of agriculture should be looked into. I also think it is a good thing for us to be able to discuss the motion with one another in a responsible manner. I want to tell the House that being able to discuss this tremendous problem in a responsible manner in the highest Chamber in the land, is, in my opinion, the start of a solution to the problem. In speaking of a proper debate or a proper discussion of the matter, I do not only mean a proper discussion inside the House, but also outside. This also applies to organized agriculture and industrial organizations in the country. It also applies to the consumers. We in this country must realize that climatic conditions are not in our hands. If at its present intensity the drought continues, the department has calculated scientifically that a situation could arise—I do not want to be an alarmist—in which people will be queuing for food. We have a strong agricultural sector with a sound infrastructure. We have a variety of financing campaigns and agricultural structures such as agricultural co-operatives, processing industries, etc, in which millions of rand are invested. We have an extremely sophisticated food industry in South Africa. One only has to walk into any chain store in the country and one will find shelves full of choicely packed food from which one can choose to one’s heart’s content. The consumer in South Africa must realize that this situation could change and that queueing for food in South Africa is not impossible. This also means that we can lapse into an economic situation similar to that in Africa. I think it is a good thing for me to say this and to emphasize that this motion is a timely one. I therefore have no objection to accepting this motion on behalf of the Government.

The Government is, of course, deeply concerned about the situation. Increasing costs, uninterrupted server droughts in our most important grain-cultivating and livestock areas give everyone cause for concern. It would be a good thing to take a brief look at the historical pattern of events and to note how the situation developed since 1980-81 and deteriorated to the point where we find ourselves today. Last year we began with intensive surveys. The hon the Deputy Minister and I criss-crossed the country to visit all these drought-stricken areas and to speak to the farmers. We also tried to determine what the mental attitude of our farmers was. After all, one cannot overcome a drought situation with people who do not want to go on. We wanted to find out whether we could give them courage. Sometimes one has to buoy oneself up in order to give them courage, and it is not always that easy. It was with great zeal that we launched drives to combat the drought situation. We received stacks of memorandums, and my department worked for nights on end, right through the night, to process all of it. The SA Agricultural Union also co-operated, and I am glad the hon member for Ceres mentioned the fact that there is close co-operation between the department, the SA Agricultural Union and the various industrial organizations. This data was processed and considered by the Cabinet, after which it was referred to the Jacobs Committee. All the recommendations were received in March of last year. The problem with this kind of thing is that one reaches a stage in which one announces aid campaigns and aid measures, without any possibility of determining the intensity with which the drought is increasing. We therefore compelled, even last year, to make certain adjustments in regard to the drought situation. The Land Bank initially envisaged that the funds that would be needed for the consolidation plan over a period of 22 years would amount to approximately R200 million. Even now, however, this amount is more than R500 million. The same thing happened in the case of agricultural co-operatives. The co-operatives’ consolidation of debt is at present in excess of R800 million. The same thing happened in the case of the agricultural credit schemes.

What is also very important is that it is not only the interest that is being subsidized, but for these astronomical amounts Government guarantees must be issued so that the Land Bank can be in a position to attract the necessary money in whilst at the same time being secure in the knowledge that it is backed up by the State.

As these conditions developed, we also encountered marketing problems, because a drought is a strange thing. On the one hand it causes surpluses—one of my hon colleagues referred to that—whilst on the other there are shortages. Grain that is dried up in a drought situation gives rise to dairy and meat product surpluses. It was so bad that at one stage we had to grant the Land Bank a loan of R30 million, which we had to subsidize to the tune of 50%. That loan was, in particular, for the removal of surplus skimmed milk powder. That is the stabilizing measure. One separates the cream, makes butter and produces skimmed milk powder which one can store for longer periods. We are in the process of exporting these surpluses at a loss.

As a result of high-pressure marketing one had to make provision at one and the same time, particularly in the northern areas, for the emergency slaughtering of livestock not normally pushed into the ordinary market because their condition is too poor. Over the years we have become meat connoiseurs. The beef must specifically be fat and tender and of a specific grade. We can no longer eat lean meat. It is as if our teeth have grown too blunt. The result is that where emergency slaughtering has had to be organized, some of this lean meat has had to be canned, which meant that there was no further cold storage congestion. For that purpose an amount of R10 million was made available to the Meat Board, and that was a successful effort. We have now again reached the point of having to organize emergency slaughtering throughout South Africa. There is something I want to make very clear here. I am very grateful for the sympathetic attitude that exists amongst the various Regional Agricultural Unions in South Africa. The farmers in Natal, for example, have decided to keep back their livestock so that there is slaughtering capacity for the farmers in the drought-stricken areas.

I could refer to many other examples. We have experienced problems in the karakul industry. The fur market collapsed and we had to institute supportive measures. When no more fur could be marketed, no more lambs were slaughtered, but were sold on the Cape market, which again caused a meat surplus. Marketing support measures then had to be introduced so that the farmers could again market their fur without their being a meat surplus. That is how things work.

We also had to adopt supportive measures in regard to cotton. As a result of the smaller crop the unit cost in regard to picking cotton became so high that farmers simply no longer saw their way clear to planting any more cotton. Consequently loans were granted to the cotton industry so that people in that industry could get at least 60 cents per kg for their pickings. Likewise we have a very important action campaign in progress in the wool industry. At one stage the wool market was evidencing a very dangerous decline, which could have meant that within two to three years the Wool Stabilization Fund, which is one of the finest and stablest stabilization funds in any of the industries in South Africa, would have been exhausted. It was therefore also decided that if wool supplies had to be sold at a great loss, the Government would also, in this connection, grant assistance up to a maximum amount of R6 million. Fortunately this did not happen. Wool prices improved.

There was the closest possible co-operation with all the various boards, and for that I am particularly grateful. In future we shall also probably continue to work together. I am also grateful for the motions of thanks we obtained at the various congresses for the aid measures adopted by the Government. Hon members may think that this is customary, but I want to say that it is tremendously stimulating—and here I am thinking in terms of one’s ability to tackle problems—if one gets a little vote of thanks now and then.

Sir, what happened? After the tough, dry winter of 1983, here in the early summer months we began to get wonderful rain. Everyone believed the drought had passed. Farmers zealously began planting their crops. Cattle farmers, who had with great care nourished the nucleus of their herds through the winter months, at tremendous cost, were jubilant. We did not lose many head of cattle as a result of the drought. Our aid measures were such that we could retain the nucleus of our herds. Cattle did not die. We had them slaughtered. Forced to do so by necessity, we had them slaughtered at our abattoirs. We do not allow them to die in the veld. We all looked forward very hopefully to the new year. I want to say with conviction that the aid measures implemented by us were successful. We could put in a crop again. We could again start the production process. Unfortunately the rains did not continue. The distribution was poor, and now the next drought is upon us.

As one of the hon members has said, it is not possible for a Government to plan for the kind of drought we are experiencing at present. It is not humanly possible. Nor is it possible for farmers to plan for the kind of drought we are experiencing at present. The department does have drought schemes for normal droughts, because droughts are a normal phenomenon in South Africa. In the dry North-West there have been droughts for many years now. That is where we have the phase schemes in operation which are also, in many respects, very successfully being implemented. We are again trying to see whether we cannot bring about certain amendments to the drought schemes. The fact of the matter is that we are keeping our people on the land and preserving the social structure of the rural areas, which is so essential. We have kept the farmers on the land by way of the aid measures we introduced. With a view to the present drought we shall again be instituting a scheme to see whether we can keep our people on the land, whether we can get back into production and whether, in the long-term, we can re-establish our agriculture as a sound industry.

Owing to the close co-operation between my department and the SA Agricultural Union I was yesterday able to receive reports on the present position. The hon member for Ceres, who is also a member of the executive committee of the SA Agricultural Union, also referred to this. There are seven reports and they are being processed at the moment. It will be put before the Cabinet shortly.

It is perhaps a good thing for me to refer to a few of these points. The facts are disturbing. According to surveys done amongst co-operatives, it appears that 30% of their members already have credit exceeding normal limits. If one looks at the index figure of financial costs, one sees—taking the 1969 figure as 100—an expected figure of 704 for 1984. That is a tremendous increase. What is extremely important is the conclusion that can be drawn from such data in regard to the western areas, and that is that the present aid measures, which we introduced last year with great effort and in the midst of great adjustments, were apparently insufficient to make provision for the present situation, in fact so much so that a large number of farmers will not be able to extricate themselves from their problems. We shall therefore have to look at these aid measures anew, with all the far-reaching adjustments and financial implications that this will entail as far as the Government is concerned.

As far as the road ahead is concerned, we do not believe the drought will persist. It will rain again. If one does not have that faith in one’s heart of hearts, one simply cannot be a farmer. That is why we regard these drought measures as temporary, ad hoc measures. Drought measures are always ad hoc measures. We shall also have to take a look at other financial aspects. We cannot merely base our agricultural industry on emergency action. The action we take must be of such a nature as to increase the agricultural industry’s future stability. We must also take a look at the long-term growth of agriculture. As far back as 1981 it was decided that certain financial bottle-necks in agriculture should be investigated. I received the report about that at the end of last year. The investigation was carried out by a subcommittee of the Jacobs Committee. Two basic problems were highlighted in the report and were investigated. In the debate hon members also referred to this. One aspect was an economic analysis of agriculture over the period 1970 to 1982. It is a period in which there were good years, in which the debt ratio in agriculture was sound and in which agriculture’s debt redemption capability was sound, but also a period in which problems were experienced.

The second aspect that the committee investigated was the economic analysis of the foreign trade in agricultural products over the same period. The committee also investigated agricultural financing.

If one looks at the macro-economic basis of South African agriculture, one sees—the hon member for De Aar also referred to that—that the index of total farming expenditure since 1975 consistently increased more rapidly than the index of gross farming income. Those are the so-called price-cost pincers. Secondly this committee found that the price index of farming requisites significantly increased more rapidly than that of the consumer prices. A situation therefore developed in which, during the period from 1970 to 1982, agriculture was under substantially greater inflationary pressure than the rest of the economy. Thirdly it was found that farmers’ total interest burden increased even far more rapidly than the total debt burden and finally amounted to R904 million. In 1982 the interest burden constituted the single greatest item of farming expenditure. During the period 1976 to 1982 the annual growth rate of the interest burden averaged 33,8%. In recent times agriculture has therefore become much more sensitive to interest rate increases than ever before, specifically as a result of the fact that the agricultural industry is so heavily dependent on external financing.

If one looks at the macro-economic side of agriculture, one sees that there are still, in my opinion, some rays of light. It is clear that there is a certain built-in growth rate in South African agriculture. In other words, agriculture has a growth potential. The average gross farming income over this period indicates a growth rate of 15,6%, and from 1976 it has evidenced a growth rate of 16,5%. In 1982 the gross farming income in South Africa was R7,2 billion, as against R3 billion in 1976 and only R1,28 billion in 1970. Agriculture therefore has an inherent potential growth rate. Jointly—and that is likewise of tremendous importance—in agriculture over this period there was an average volumetric growth of 2%, and from 1976 this increased to more than 3%. Seen from a macro-economic point of view, we are therefore not all that badly off. Even our debt redemption ratio was 5,8:1 in 1982.

Seventy-five per cent of agriculture’s security consists chiefly of fixed assets, ie land, and that is why we have cash-flow problems in agriculture. A farmer says, for example, that he is a very wealthy man, according to the balance sheet, but has no money in the bank. That is the position farmers generally find themselves in. If we want to keep farmers on the land to the greatest possible extent, however, we cannot always look at the overall situation, and in that regard I agree with the hon member for Barberton. There are also other hon members who made the statement that one would have to carry out investigations into the various farming systems in South Africa. An overall analysis gives one a good impression, but nevertheless hides certain essential phenomena that do not come to the fore in such an analysis, and we shall therefore have to take a look at that.

When I table the White Paper I hope, on the basis of this particular report, to be announcing certain action campaigns. I do not believe that one can table a White Paper incorporating fine objectives if, at one and the same time, one does not announce certain action to be taken to achieve such objectives. [Interjections.] In the discussion of my Vote we will certainly have an opportunity to argue about the instruments we shall have to use to achieve these objectives. The macro-economic development of the general financial position of farmers is consequently one of the aspects we shall have to pay attention to. We shall have to look at systems of financing.

What is important however, and is sometimes forgotten, is the fact that agricultural research embodies wide-ranging solutions for many of our problems. You might find it interesting, Sir, to know that certain experiments done by the Potchefstroom grain centre at Bothaville have indicated that two weeks ago that maize still showed a potential of four tons, whilst everything else in the vicinity was quite dead.

I am afraid that after this we shall no longer be able to farm in the old way. We shall have to farm in accordance with the dictates of nature. We shall also have to farm in accordance with the dictates of our financial capabilities. I therefore foresee that as a result of this drought situation we shall quite probably have a complete change in production structures on the farms and on the land as a whole. In fact, we can learn valuable lessons from these drought conditions, and I am therefore going to meet the future in the hope that all bodies, even the consumers, will help us to deal with this difficult phase.

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