Mr Chairman, as is the custom in this House, I understand that the first speaker on a clause in Committee Stage is normally allowed to cover a somewhat wider field than is normally allowed other speakers.

We had quite a protracted Second Reading debate on this Bill …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Does that concession apply to any clause of a Bill or only to the first clause?

No, the concession applies to any clause of a Bill.

Mr Chairman, what I should like to point out in particular is the fact that this clause contains what can be termed the gravamen of my objection to this Bill, namely that it allows for the introduction of flavoured wine into South Africa. We have been told by hon members of the CP—who have done a complete summersault if one compares their attitude now with their attitude to a previous Bill of the same nature—that these were going to be fine, natural agricultural products. Clause 6, however, gives no indication that the flavoured beverages which are going to be introduced now will indeed be agricultural products. One of our problems in dealing with this particular Bill—a problem which the hon the Deputy Minister also raised—is the question of a wine lobby in this House. Lobbying is of course an integral part of a democratic system of Government. I have no objection therefore to people lobbying members of Parliament. I do believe, however, that Parliament should be aware of the fact that the KWV have a very strong lobby among members of this House. Three of the hon members who spoke during the Second Reading debate—and who will probably speak again—the hon member for Gordonia, the hon member for Wellington, and the hon member for Ceres, are directors of the KWV.

As happens every year, I do not doubt that this year again we will be offered for Christmas a wine parcel by the KWV. This year it will of course, I presume, also contain flavoured wine. Be it as it may, we are offered wine as a Christmas gift every year. I regard that gesture as a lobbying factor, and I believe not one single hon member of this House can deny that fact. It remains a fact that the wine industry has a strong lobby amongst hon members of this House.

Mr Chairman, I should like to know from the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North whether he would give any indication in his speech of whether he would perhaps like to relinquish the little gift parcel which he receives annually from the KWV?

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Krugersdorp for that question. I should like to put it to him that I do write a letter to the KWV every year thanking them for their gesture in offering me that little Christmas gift. I do also, however, indicate to them each time that because I am a public representative I do not accept unsolicited gifts from anyone. [Interjections.] Furthermore, Mr Chairman, I do not solicit gifts from people in the public sector. The hon member for Krugersdorp can write to the KWV and ask them whether they have ever sent me a Christmas gift. I am very happy to buy their products because I enjoy them. I am not, however, prepared to accept gifts because it compromises my position. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I should like to know from the hon member whether I could have his little gift as well. We up in the Transvaal appreciate the produce of the KWV. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, that hon member will have to join the queue of my own party colleagues who are competing for that little parcel! [Interjections.] To return now to the actual contents of clause 6, Mr Chairman, I should like to point out the following. We have been led to believe—and we have been told so by the hon member for Paarl and by the hon member for Wynberg—that this is a wonderful measure because what we are trying to do in terms of this legislation is to reduce the alcohol content of flavoured wine from 16% of normal wine to only 6,5%. If we do read the clause, however, it appears that flavoured wine will not be sold unless the alcoholic strength thereof is at least 6,5% of alcohol by volume. The argument advanced by the hon member for Paarl would have been more effective if it had been stipulated in this clause that flavoured wine should not be sold unless the alcoholic strength thereof was not more than 6,5% of alcohol by volume. In terms of this clause, as it is worded now, there is nothing prohibiting the sale of flavoured wine with an alcoholic strength of 10% or even 11% by volume. I believe that we should not sell flavoured wine unless its alcoholic strength is not more than 6,5% of alcohol by volume, and I hope that the hon the Deputy Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment I propose to move in this regard. I think this is a very important aspect.

When we study clause 6, it reveals a great deal more than meets the eye initially. The hon member for Wynberg, who is not in the House at the moment, made a very strong plea in regard to the responsibility of the wine industry in respect of what used to be called a “swartvarkie”, a large black container of wine. What do we find in this clause, Sir? We find that the intention is to sell wine in 25 litre receptacles. The intention is, therefore, that wine should be sold in 25 litre containers. Here again we have the truth in regard to the question of marketing. The objective is to get people to buy wine in large quantities. I believe that the quantity should be limited and, in view of his responsible attitude in regard to “swartvarkies”, the hon member for Wynberg should support us in this regard.

What does this clause show us? If the hon the Deputy Minister and the KWV are wanting to sell this wine in 25 litre containers, it would appear to me as though they are actually hoping to enter the sorghum beer market. We have all seen the large vehicles on the roads of our country carrying the 20 or 25 litre cans. Those of us who are in the farming industry with Black labourers will know that occasionally, over a weekend, we will go to the local sorghum brewery and purchase a certain number of 20 or 25 litre containers of sorghum beer for our farm labourers to celebrate a particular event.

But you are an opponent of the tot system.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central will know that there is a vast difference between a 25 litre container of beer and a bottle of high alcohol content wine that is given to labourers. In addition, we do not give them the beer as part of their wages. We give it to them occasionally to celebrate, say, a wedding.

We find in the proposed new section 6(e) what this Bill is all about. In his Second Reading speech, the hon the Deputy Minister told us what the consumption of alcohol in this country was, and one detected a sense of disappointment on his part that our consumption of wine per head of population was so much lower than in Italy, Spain or France. I believe that it is the responsibility of hon members of this House to do their best to ensure that the per capita consumption of alcohol in this country remains as low as possible. It is not our function to promote an increase in the per capita consumption of alcohol. By supporting this kind of legislation we are going to assist in increasing the per capita consumption of alcohol in the country. I believe that if we are going to agree to a provision such as is contained in the proposed new section 6(e), then we are going to encounter serious problems.

Mr Chairman, I hope you will permit me to reply to the speech of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I am sorry, Sir, but I have been in error. The proposed new section 6 is being inserted by clause 8.

Order! The hon member can discuss that at a later stage.

All I want to suggest, Sir, is that you point out to the Committee that as a result of my error, we are now dealing with clause 8 whereas we should be dealing with clause 6.

Order! I have put clause 6 and that is the clause we are discussing.

Mr Chairman, if one has scant knowledge of a subject, one does get confused about the various clauses.

Let me now come back to the first point the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North raised, that in regard to the “wine lobby”. In that connection I should like to reiterate what I said in the Second Reading debate, and that is that if “wine lobby” means that in the House there is an interest group making representations, putting forward a standpoint and supplying information, we are a “wine lobby”, but if the hon member meant a “wine lobby” that is a pressure group, let me tell him that he ought to know—he would not know, however, because he knows nothing about systems of government, and I do not believe he will ever know anything about it—that in a democratic system no Government can govern by way of pressure groups.

Just by the way: The hon member does not have to accept that gift. The KWV’s intention in giving it to the hon member was merely to educate him, and I am sorry that this was apparently unsuccessful.

To prove how little knowledge the hon member has, let me point out that he spoke about wine with an alcohol content of 12% or 14%. I would like to see that wine, because the average alcohol content of our natural wines is in the vicinity of 10% to 11,5% by volume. I should like to make it very clear what flavoured wine is. Flavoured wine will be a very fight wine sweetened by a natural product of the wine, ie moskonfyt, with just sufficient flavouring to give it a pineapple or banana taste or whatever. To put it succinctly, one could say it is wine with a little something, just a whiff.

A final point to illustrate the hon member’s lack of knowledge relates to his reference to 25 litres and so on. That is something of the past; it has been abolished. This 25 litres relates, in point of fact, to supplies to the wholesale trade to which one can, in terms of the Act, supply any quantities.

The final point is a serious one. The hon member said that the hon the Deputy Minister had advocated a greater consumption of wine in South Africa. That the hon the Deputy Minister did not do. He merely used comparative figures. We could do a little better, particularly if we could educate the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North ever so slightly.

Mr Chairman, I want to come to the hon member for Wellington. I should like us to understand, here in Parliament, that there is nothing wrong with a pressure group, whether it be the Kappiekommando, the Broederbond, the Afrikaanse Taalen Kultuurvereniging or the Chamber of Horrors, as one hon Minister called it …

Order! The hon member must now return to the provisions of clause 6.

Sir, clause 6 refers to section 6 of the Act, but section 6 is dealt with in clause 8. Whether one talks about section 6 under clause 6 or clause 8 does not matter; it is all the same to me. When we get to clause 8, I shall be discussing section 6 again, if that would make things easier for you.

Order! The hon member would do well to read what is contained in clause 6 of the Bill. He may discuss only that and nothing else.

Sir, clause 6 contains the definition of “flavoured wine”, referring to section 6 dealt with in clause 8. I shall deal with that in greater detail, and come back to what the hon member for Wellington said, when we come to clause 8.

Mr Chairman, allow me briefly to put my party’s standpoint. I am sorry about the fact that although we ought to be debating a tasteful product here, a slightly distasteful flavour has been added to the debate. I also find it a pity that it is alleged that once leaders in the agricultural field are elected as members of this House they may no longer speak about those fields in which they are specialists. I find that an astounding allegation and therefore do not want to say anything more about it.

The hon member contended that we had changed our standpoint. That is not true at all. In the previous legislation on the wine industry we made it very clear that in that particular case we opposed the extension of the licences of specific companies. As far as the Bill now before the House is concerned, we support all its provisions.

Mr Chairman, I briefly want to react to what the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North said. I am sorry that he was so unkind to the KWV, which extends such a friendly gesture to him each year. The position is that in terms of a very old law the products of the KWV may not be distributed locally. It does happen, of course, that we sometimes have to play host to foreign guests who tell us that they have drunk our KWV wines in London or in Hong Kong and would like to get to know them better. The KWV gift-pack does make it possible to have at least a sample of the wine in our homes. That is all that is involved here, over and above the educational task involved, as the hon member for Wellington has indicated. When I spoke the other day about the low consumption figure for wine in South Africa, in comparison with other countries, I was not trying to intimate that the alcohol consumption in South Africa was necessarily low as well. I said the wine consumption in South Africa was low. I do not know what the figure for alcohol consumption is. Perhaps it is high, perhaps it is low. I think, in any event, that it would be a good thing if we could switch over from the use of alcohol, for example whisky, to the use of natural wines.

Make it all spirits.

Sir, some spirits do come from the wine farmers. I would rather see us giving a slightly less prominent place to some of those spirits that do not come from the wine farmers.

The Minister of Finance would object to that.

We have been trying to bring the hon the Minister of Finance round to our way of thinking for years now. As yet he is sticking to his guns, but some time or other he is going to concede that we ought to give preference to our own brandy here.

Clause 6 only makes provision for the replacement of the definition of “ginger wine” by the definition of “flavoured wine”. There is nothing more involved.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr Chairman, I once again wish to apologize for adressing the Committee on the matter I raised earlier, because clause 8 is actually the one I object to. I would like to come back to what the hon member for Wellington has said.

*I think the hon member should read the clause carefully. There is nothing in this clause providing for the agents used in flavouring wine necessarily having to come from the agricultural sector. Anything can be used to give wine a certain flavour. We must therefore be careful in this regard. I immediately want to tell him and the hon the Deputy Minister that I have always, in a very friendly and courteous fashion, thanked the KWV for its gesture, but that I have also told the KWV frankly that it is not in the interests of a public representative to receive such gifts from people.

Order! I am sorry but I cannot allow the hon member to raise that aspect now.

I am a purchaser of wines, and once I have tasted the flavoured wines, I may perhaps become a purchaser of that kind of wine when it becomes available to the public.

I want to express my concern about the proposed new section 6(e)(ii) providing for flavoured wines surcharged with carbon dioxide. Perhaps the hon member for Barberton could also have a look at this. This kind of flavoured wine is exactly the same product as that which the CP objected to in the discussion of the previous legislation. Perhaps they were only opposed to Big Business. At the time they objected to the sale of so-called champagne wines in supermarkets. In terms of this subparagraph exactly the same kind of wine is now going to be available. Well this Parliament is not that stupid and knows what it is all about. The CP does not want to alienate the agricultural vote, and it is nothing but political opportunism that has led to their about-face in regard to this matter. I want to recommend that they adopt a standpoint, like that adopted by the official Opposition, in terms of which individuals decide for themselves how they feel about a matter such as this.

I am wholeheartedly opposed to this clause, in particular, because I do not think it is in the interests of Parliament to pass this kind of legislation.

Order! The hon member cannot now discuss the principle again. The hon member has done so in regard to clause 6.

Mr Chairman, I respect your ruling. I want to point out, however, that this clause actually forms the gist of the objection that many hon members have to this legislation. Could the hon the Deputy Minister tell us what flavouring substances are going to be used to flavour wine? We have heard about ginger, and the hon member for Wellington spoke about bananas. I think we ought to know what is going to be used. Is Cola going to be used, because that is apparently also an agricultural product from Central America? Is vanilla from Zanzibar going to be used? I would be glad if the hon the Minister would tell us.

The hon member for Wellington referred to a container with a capacity of 25 litres, of which mention is made in the proposed new section 6(e). I am not speaking about the intention now, but there is nothing in this measure that provides that flavoured wine cannot be sold in 25-litres containers. On the contrary, a container with a capacity of 25 litres must be labelled in the same way as a bottle with, for example, a capacity of 750 ml. The Bill contains absolutely nothing to indicate to me that these 25-litre containers are merely for commercial use. As I read it, these containers could as easily be sold to retailers as to wholesalers. The hon the Deputy Minister must tell us what the intention of this Bill is. The Bill provides for certain things, but the intentions are different. What has happened in the case of ginger wine? During the Second Reading debate hon members mentioned the fact …

Order! The hon member is repeating the Second Reading debate.

Mr Chairman, is ginger wine flavoured wine or not?

Order! The hon member must not put questions to me. He must only discuss clause 8 and not repeat the Second Reading debate.

Ginger wine is flavoured wine. The hon the Deputy Minister mentioned it and I also want to refer to it.

Order! The hon member is now referring to something that was discussed during the Second Reading debate. He cannot now discuss it again. He may only refer to clause 8 and discuss its content.

Sir, ginger wine is the only flavoured wine that is sold in South Africa at the moment. This ginger wine or “Ginger Fizz” is being marketed very successfully and has, to a very large extent, given rise to the desire to sell a kind of pop wine, as it is going to be known. The actual intention in marketing in 25-litre containers is to sell more wine, in other words to increase the consumption of wine. I cannot see how the consumption of whisky would decrease in favour of the consumption of flavoured wine. My objection is to this proposed section, according to which it is provided that it will now be possible to sell this wine in 25 litre cans or plastic bottles. It will be labelled—in spite of what the hon member for Wellington says—and sold in the same way it would if it were 750 ml. The hon the Deputy Minister must therefore tell us what the intention behind this clause is. Would the 25 litre containers only be sold to wholesalers, and why are they being labelled as if they were being sold to retailers?

And why is it not provided, in terms of the proposed new section 6(b), that only flavoured wine that does not contain more than 6,5% alcohol by volume may be sold. Why “at least” 6,5%?

What worries me is that flavoured wine with, for example, 12% alcohol by volume will be sold, and nothing in the Act will prevent this, because it will be wine. Ordinary wine merely has a minimum alcohol content requirement, not a maximum. That is what bothers me, and the hon the Deputy Minister must explain those two aspects to the House.

Mr Chairman, it is very clear to me that my earlier plea about it being only people with the necessary knowledge of a subject who should speak about that subject was to no avail.

Firstly I want to put a few matters straight. Firstly, all the components of this wine will be natural products. In other words, it will be made from fermented grapes. What is added to sweeten it comes from the grape and is a form of moskonfyt. The third component will be the natural agricultural one. So nothing artificial will be added. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North is therefore wrong, and I hereby want to allay his fears.

He is not listening.

A man who does not know anything is not interested in knowledge.

Secondly, it is extremely unfair to refer to the hon member for Barberton’s standpoint in regard to carbon dioxide in sparkling wine. One could have a long debate about what was champagne and what was sparkling wine. What is sold, for the most part, is sparkling wine, which is a quite ordinary wine impregnated with carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide develops from the natural fermentation of grapes. It is therefore still a natural product of the vine.

Then I want to refer again to the question of the 25-litre container that the hon member does not understand. Just as these products must have their origins in agriculture itself, these matters are also controlled by other Acts relating to liquor in South Africa. Other legislation contains specific provisions in regard to these 25-liter containers. The position is that any container with a smaller capacity must be labelled. If one wants to furnish a larger amount to a retailer or wholesaler, it does not have to be labelled. That is what it is really all about. The object is to be able to trace the source.

The hon member also referred to ginger. These additional flavourings will supplement ginger. I should very much like to make the point that it is on behalf of the overall wine market in South Africa that the wine industry in South Africa is coming to light with various nuances and certain new developments. Let me tell the hon member that ginger wine replaced certain other wines in the market-place. We thus want to be able to provide for the overall taste spectrum in South Africa.

Lastly it is very clear that the hon member does not know what 6,5% alcohol by volume—or even 11%, 12% or 14—means. He now wants a maximum of 6,5% introduced. For the hon member’s information let me say that wine of 6,5% alcohol by volume is, as it were—to put it in plain terms—barely wine at all. If the alcohol by volume were any lower, one would basically have pressed green grapes. Then no one would find the end product acceptable because it would be the nearest thing to vinegar or pure grape juice. According to our calculations, at 6,5% we could put a very good, tastefully light product on the market. And if there is a “Ginger Fizz” on the market with 6,5% alcohol by volume, there is surely no sense in anyone else marketing it with 8,5% alcohol by volume, for example, because then he would be losing that 2% of the alcohol in hard cash, because he cannot charge more for that product than for the other. That is how simple it is. Although I accept that many of the things the hon member says are said tongue in cheek, I really do want to ask him not to display his ignorance so palpably.

Mr Chairman, I just want to react to two things the hon member for Wellington said. I do, of course, understand that 6,5% is a very low volume of alcohol. What I should like to know, however, is what the problem would be if we set the maximum at 6,5%, if there is going to be no more than that in the flavoured wine in any event. I therefore cannot follow that hon member’s reasoning. If he says that there is not going to be more than 6,5% alcohol by volume put in, why can we not place a ceiling on the alcohol content by volume? I cannot see the hon member’s point.

Secondly the hon member referred to the 25-litre container for the commercial sector. He says that if the container has a capacity of more than 25 litres, it is intended for the wholesale trade and is not labelled in the same manner. As we understand it, it then goes to a bottling plant where it is poured into smaller containers. If it were going to wholesale storage depots to be transferred to smaller bottles or cartons, we could understand that it would not be necessary to label it. What I find sinister, however—and what the House should, in my view, take note of—is the fact that 25-litre containers are going to be labelled as if they were destined for the retail sector. In a previous debate both the hon member and the hon the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism made the point that the “swartvarkie”—or whatever it is called—in the Boland, which was apparently an extreme aberration as far as the consumption of wine was concerned, was abolished by the KWV and responsible wine producers because it was said that it led to drunkenness, etc. In this clause, however, provision is being made for a 25-litre container that will be made available to the retail trade. If they are concerned about alcohol abuse, I cannot see how hon members can support this clause.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry to have to waste time, but there are certain matters I should like to respond to. Firstly I want to refer to the hon member’s question about whether we could not restrict the alcoholic strength of wine to a maximum of 6,5%. What is important here is that one is dealing with a natural product. One presses the grapes and hopes that the alcoholic strength will be 6,5%. It could, however, be 7,8%, for example. To decrease the alcoholic strength one would then have to add water—which by law may not be done—or grape juice. That is how simple it is. I challenge any farmer to harvest his grapes in such a way that the alcoholic strength is exactly 6,5%. It is simply not possible.

Another name for the “swartvarkie”—the 25-litre container—is the “white nurse”, a name I heard two or three years ago. The “swartvarkie” is a large black container, but subsequently the plastics industry made a large white container that was called the “white nurse”.

The hon member apparently does not want to understand that there is other legislation that provides that no producer may sell wine to anyone in a container larger than 5 litres, except to the commercial sector, ie the retail or wholesale sector. I want the hon member to understand this very clearly now. Five litres is the maximum amount a producer, a co-operative wine cellar or whatever may sell anyone. Quantities of 25 litres—or of more that 5 litres—are retail quantities. Surely the hon member knows this, because he buys wine here in this hon House by the glass. The large container is merely there to allow it to be sold by the glass or for people who want to process it further. Those are the few points I wanted to raise. Does the hon member not want to stop all this stupidity now?

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Wellington for his explanations. That makes it unnecessary for me to cover the same ground. This applies especially to the position in regard to the 25-litre container.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North knows that the Act administered by my hon colleague provides that liquor shall not be sold to the public in containers larger than five litres. The hon member for Wellington was just emphasizing that point, indicating that the containers prescribed in the legislation are not meant for sale to the public.

As far as the question of carbon dioxide and sparkling wine is concerned, the hon member must not confuse this wine, which is a sparkling wine, with champagne. In reply to the Second Reading I said—I want to reiterate this, because at the time the hon member was probably not listening very carefully—that because flavoured wine does not comply with the definition of wine as contained in the Act at the moment either, it would not be possible to sell it in ordinary supermarkets like other wine. In other words, the sale of champagne, or sparkling wine, and the sale of this wine has nothing to do with each other. If representations were subsequently to be made about flavoured wine also being sold in supermarkets, the hon the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, who deals with this matter, would have to introduce legislation to make this possible. It is not, however, possible at the moment.

With regard to an alcoholic strength of 6,5%, the hon member must understand that when a person takes in grapes at 20° balling—at least when the grapes are ripe—and makes a dry wine—in other words, the sugar is allowed to ferment out—one is left with a product with an alcoholic strength of approximately 10% or 11%. That is the normal alcohol content of dry wine. That alcohol content can then be increased by a process of fortification, by adding alcohol, so that it becomes a sweet wine or fortified wine, or the alcohol content can be decreased by adding a certain amount of sterilized grape juice by volume, in which case the alcohol content by volume would decrease.

If one were to go to below 6%, however, one would in reality be diluting the wine to such an extent that one would no longer be able to argue that it was still wine at all, and that is why a minimum level is set. As the hon member for Wellington rightly said, for each one degree drop in the alcohol content, the farmer is actually losing alcohol, and that alcohol is valuable. I think I have now answered all the questions on this clause.

Clause 8 agreed to (Messrs K M Andrew, B R Bamford, Dr M S Barnard, Messrs R M Burrows, C W Eglin, G B D McIntosh, E K Moorcroft, M A Tarr and A B Widman dissenting).

Mr Speaker, when the House adjourned last Friday, I had reached the stage where I was reflecting on the reasons for the introduction of the Marketing Act in the first place. We know this took place as far back as 1937, and I think that we should consider and remember this at this particular stage of the debate. What brought about the introduction of that Act? There were four essential reasons, and they were, firstly, the absolute confusion and chaos in the agricultural industry throughout the country at that time. Secondly, there was a complete lack of orderliness and also no future prospects in the industry. Thirdly, there was no system in the marketing of agricultural products and, finally, farmers at that time were victims of the most horrific types of exploitation possible. In fact, I would go so far as to say that had the Marketing Act not been introduced then the whole agricultural industry would have collapsed.

From time to time criticism is being levelled at the system set up by this Act by people who do not necessarily know anything about the agricultural industry. I think this criticism should be treated with the contempt it deserves, until such time at least as alternatives are suggested which would be better than the existing Act.

Returning to the Bill itself, Mr Speaker, I should like to state how much we welcome many aspects behind the thinking which motivated the introduction of this Bill. We do appreciate the greater flexibility which this measure will entail. In retrospect, I believe, if one was to look at one area of weakness within the whole system of operation of the Marketing Act, one could possibly say that the application of that Act has been too rigid. I do think therefore that the legislation now before the House will go a long way towards creating that flexibility which is so necessary in this regard.

One also notes with pleasure that the State President will now be in a position to amend Schedule 1 of the Act, relating to definitions. He will be able to do so by way of proclamation. He will also be able to provide for new definitions which might become necessary from time to time. At this stage it is particularly relevant in regard to the definition of a product. It is well-known that there are many substitute products, being displayed on the shelves of supermarkets. There are blended products coming on to the market also and products that are being sold under pseudo-trade names giving the impression that those products contain real and genuine agricultural ingredients. It is alarming to note that some of these products have no connection at all with the agricultural product with which they are being associated. This legislation, I believe, will provide the Minister with the opportunity of controlling and removing malpractices of this nature.

One realizes that provision is also being made now in connection with many aspects of the Co-operative Act, which was passed in 1981. This is a logical development. Furthermore, provision is being made for the co-operative system to be incorporated into the Act with greater ease. Mr Speaker, one appreciates the need for control boards to furnish information to the Minister as he may require it. It is also necessary that control boards should submit to the Minister, details regarding the withdrawal, the amendment or the issue of a notice relating to the import and the export of products. These are features which we strongly support.

The powers by proclamation of the State President being transferred to the Minister by notice in the Gazette, have been noted. If one talks of flexibility, this is probably where it manifests itself most clearly. This Bill also relates to matters affecting control boards jointly, and the amendments will also obviate many of the existing bottlenecks within the system.

Clause 12 streamlines the pension scheme of the members of the control boards. This we regard as a logical and sensible development.

We welcome clause 15 which amends section 19 of the principal Act in that the provisions of the schemes operated under the Act may be now extended to states that where formerly part of the Republic of South Africa. Agriculture in those territories as well as in adjoining territories will now benefit accordingly. As a result of this, the boards will now be empowered to operate any scheme relative to any particular product, and I feel that this is a very important development. Clause 17 deals with penalties for contravention of the provisions of schemes, and the penalties are welcomed and are understood. The question of co-opting members for various reasons in an advisory capacity, also seems to us to be most sensible. One is also aware of the importance of the question of confidentiality at board meetings being observed and being strictly adhered to.

Clause 28 inserts a new section 60C into the principal Act which provides that control boards may now enter into agreements regarding the conveyance of goods by sea. This opens up the means of negotiating bulk shipping rates. It is interesing to note that as a result of this facility being available in Australia, that country has been in a position to land its wool on European markets at a lower price than this country was able to do. We feel, therefore, that this is a very important step in that it now removes the prohibition placed on exporters to make use of shipping lines that are not signatories to the bulk shipping rate agreement.

We accept the fact that provision must be made for the equalization of levy rates.

Clause 41 amends section 85 of the principal Act in regard to the powers of inspectors. This is very important indeed because these inspectors are now going to be able to undertake inspections which have hitherto not been possible and their duties are going to be much more extended than they were in the past.

Clause 43 amends section 87 of the principal Act and deals with the question of the export and import of products. To my mind this is one of the most important features of this legislation and we note with approval that any import or export of products will now be subject to permission being obtained from the Director-General. These are very welcome steps and will, I am sure, deal satisfactorily with a number of contraventions that are taking place at the present time. As far as the penalties for these contraventions are concerned, we in these benches feel that the penalties are completely inadequate. In respect of a previous clause in this legislation the hon the Minister saw fit to increase the penalty to a maximum fine of R5 000. I wish to ask him whether he will accept the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I hope he will let me have his reply to this proposed amendment during the course of this Second Reading debate. When I refer to the existing penalties being completely inadequate, I wish to point out that of late certain concerns have been found guilty of contravening existing regulations and, as a result of sentences inposed, were no doubt laughing all the way from the court. The people who contravene these regulations stand to make enormous profits. What they are virtually doing is that they are smuggling these products into this country, and as such, this smuggling should be treated with the severity that it deserves and applicable in other spheres.

I would like to refer to the reply I received to Question 760 on 11 April this year in which I asked for information regarding the sentences that were imposed on certain firms who had contravened the regulations regarding the importation of dairy products. There was a case where a certain firm imported some 9 500 kg of powdered milk. Apart from the fact that the firm was required to pay the levy of nearly R2 500 to the Dairy Board, this concern was fined the paltry sum of R200. You will appreciate why I reiterate that the offender could only have laughed all the way from the court. In another case involving the illegal importation of 600 kg of cheese the fine was R50.

It is in this context that I wish to submit my amendment for consideration to the hon the Minister. This amendment merely brings this section into line with the penalties prescribed in clause 17, and I would emphasize that certain contraventions under this clause are graver than those prescribed in clause 17.

We in these benches also wish to express our confidence in the Marketing Act. In conclusion I want to say that we shall give this Bill the fullest support and we trust that the hon the Minister will consider the one aspect which is of concern to us, and that is the fact that the Minister will now be given additional discretionary powers. He will be able to make, by notice in the Government Gazette, changes as he may see fit from time to time and I would appeal to him to ensure that this is done in close consultation between himself and the Co-ordinating Committee of Control Boards.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Mooi River made a very positive contribution in support of this Bill. The hon member has been involved in agriculture for many years now and as a result is very well acquainted with agriculture. Accordingly I thank him for supporting this Bill together with his party.

He singled out various important aspects of the Bill for us. I just wish to react to one of those aspects, viz control boards. The hon member expressed strong support for control boards, as did the hon member for Ceres. I, too, endorse that. We live in a country of extremes, and without any form of control we should be heading straight for chaos. The hon member also made the point that control keeps within acceptable limits the price the producer obtains for his products, in comparison with the price that the consumer has to pay. That is a very important point. Another important point is that the control boards are financed by way of levies that the producer himself pays.

From time to time one hears the criticism that there are supposedly too many control boards. A control board is composed of skilled persons with a very thorough knowledge of the industry to be controlled. Here one need also call to mind the wine industry that we have just been debating. I think it may be said that people who are authorities on the wine industry are not necessarily authorities on the wool industry. Accordingly we have to have separate control boards for the various industries. We cannot have just one marketing board. The National Marketing Council is of course a very important council. Its task is to provide the Minister and the control boards with advice and factual information. In other words, the National Marketing Council has a controlling function. In conjunction with that there is the Marketing Act. This Act is equally important. It creates the framework within which the control boards have to perform their functions.

The hon member for Albany welcomed the improvements to the existing legislation introduced by this Bill, although he criticized certain aspects. For example, he asked that a select committee be appointed to investigate the whole sphere of agriculture and marketing and then to amend the Act where necessary. It is the prerogative of the hon the Minister to decide on that. However, I must point out that a select committee was appointed as far back as 1973 with the following terms of reference:

In that year the select committee reported that it had been unable to complete its investigation and recommended that it be converted into a commission in order to pursue the investigation. Accordingly such a commission was appointed by the State President on 23 May 1973. The Chairman was the then chairman of the agricultural group of the NP, the present hon Minister of Agriculture. Over a period of three years this commission carried out a wide-ranging investigation and even investigated marketing systems in overseas countries such as America, England, Australia, Canada and many others. The marketing systems in those countries were compared with the marketing systems in South Africa. What is interesting is that the findings of the commission were that the agricultural legislation, and in particular the Marketing Act, that we have here in South Africa was indeed sound and good legislation and that not a great deal could be done to improve it.

In point of fact, agriculture in South Africa is based on three Acts. In the first place there is the Soil Conservation Act, one of our good Acts that has achieved very good results in practice. In the second place there is the Co-operative Society Act. It was amended during 1981 and is also rendering yeoman service to agriculture in general. The third Act is the Marketing Act. Agriculture as in South Africa is based based on these three pillars. Due to the implementation of these three sound Acts we have extended the self-sufficiency of the South African farmer. Since we are now amending the Marketing Act it is only right that we should consider the state of agriculture several years ago. My good friend the hon member for Mooi River started in 1937 and said that before this legislation was on the Statute Book, there was chaos in agriculture. There was no control and no marketing system. I wish to confirm what the hon member said. At that time I was still a young boy and I shall never forget how my father, when he had finished threshing, had to go, hat in hand, and holding a jam jar containing a sample of his product, from trader to trader to find out where he could get a price for his product. We do not want to revert to those times. Since then agriculture in South Africa has undergone tremendous development and we have become a country that exports products. Therefore it goes without saying that when we amend an Act such as this our producers will be the first people who will consider the legislation with a marketing orientation. Our producers have to do everything in their power to adapt matters so that we take the consumer and his preferences into account. We must also take our market into account. Moreover, we must take marketing possibilities elsewhere in the world into account. All this is necessary because, as I have already said, we have become an exporter of agricultural products.

The amendments now being proposed by the hon the Minister have become necessary because the Act must be adjusted to altered circumstances and it must be streamlined. I should like to deal with a few of the amendments.

In my opinion an important amendment is clause 23, which amends section 36 of the Act. From time to time questions are asked in Parliament about agricultural matters, and the National Marketing Council has to make the necessary recommendations to the Minister. The control board in question can then say that the information is confidential and that it does not wish to furnish it to the Marketing Council or the Minister. That can place the hon the Minister in an embarrassing position. The amendment now provides that the information is in fact conveyed to the Minister and the Minister may then decide whether or not it is of a confidential nature.

Another important amendment is embodied in clause 33, which amends section 78B of the Act. The Act provides that control boards may enter into agreements with self-governing states but not with independent states. Independent states were not included because at that stage there were as yet no independent states. Independent states are now being included. This is already happening in practice, and this is merely being rectified by way of this amendment. This also applies to neighbouring states.

Another important amendment is contained in clause 17, which amends section 23 of the principal Act. This clause is concerned with penalties. Penalties are being drastically increased because otherwise it would be better to pay the fine and continue committing certain contraventions. Other hon members have also referred to that. The fine is being increased to R5 000 or to two years imprisonment or both. The hon member for Albany found no fault with the penalty but he did express reservations with regard to the period of imprisonment. This is the maximum penalty and the court can still exercise its discretion in each instance.

Clauses 19, 20 and 22 concern meetings of control boards. For both types of meeting of a control board the hon the Minister issues directions concerning whom the chairman may permit to be present at such a meeting. If the decision is one in respect of which the Minister’s approval is required, no one may disclose any particulars of or information in connection with such a decision before the Minister has considered the decision. In my opinion this is a logical amendment.

I shall let this suffice. Other hon members will discuss other amendments. It is a pleasure to give this legislation my whole-hearted support.

Mr Speaker, it is a privilege to follow the hon member for Ladybrand. In my opinion, he delivered a well-considered speech. He is a person for whom I have a great deal of respect.

In my opinion, this will also be the first year in which we shall obtain the unanimous agreement of all political parties in respect of the Marketing Act, particularly an agricultural Marketing Act such as this. I take it that the hon member for Barberton—as I have come to know him—and his party will support this Bill. I do not want to anticipate him, but I think he will do so.

It does not often happen in other Parliaments of the world that agreement is reached on a Marketing Act. It is virtually a centuries-old tradition that the Marketing Act is criticized by economists, quasi-economists and laymen who are not acquainted with it and who do not take an interest in the agricultural industry. It is theorized that the agricultural industry as such ought theoretically to be best adapted to the free market system. In the case of South Africa there are 70 000 producers and 30 million consumers. Therefore, there is a large group of producers and consumers who are willing to enter into a transaction. Theoretically this fits in with the free market system in which supply and demand can determine the price of a product.

The President’s Council—reference has already been made to that in this debate— also makes mention of this and refers to the Marketing Act, but supports the principle that in the case of the agricultural industry there should be specific marketing boards to regulate the marketing of a specific product.

There are many critics of marketing laws throughout the world. The more capitalist-oriented a country’s economy is, the more criticism of marketing Acts is encountered. Usually it is contended that they constitute the grossest form of Government interference in the free market system. What these people, who usually know nothing about the agricultural industry, usually forget—this is only one factor that I want to single out to explain why we need a Marketing Act for a free agricultural economy in South Africa— is that agriculture cannot adjust to the market situation, as other sectors of the economy are capable of doing on a larger scale and more thoroughly. For example, the agricultural industry is not in a position to manipulate its supply. There are various reasons for this, and one of the most important and well-known in our country is that we are unable to control climatic conditions, and as a result supply cannot be controlled either. In a year of good rain we produce 13 million tons of maize, viz several million tons more than the normal domestic consumption of 7 million tons. In a drought year such as this one we are likely to produce 3 to 4 million tons, which falls far below market requirements in South Africa. Another characteristic of agriculture is that if, for example, there is no longer a demand for wool, it is not very easy to convert from merino farming to, say, mutton farming. It takes literally generations of cross-breeding with other breeds of sheep to produce a breed earmarked for the meat market. Once one has planted orange trees, those orange trees will stand, one hopes, for 50 years. One cannot simply pull out the orange trees if for some reason the demand for citrus suddenly falls one year. These are specific characteristics which make it very difficult for the agricultural industry to manipulate the supply side of the free market system. As I have said, other sectors of the economy are in a better position than agriculture to control the supply of their products.

The opposite side of the free market system is the demand side, whereby the price of the product is determined. In this respect, too, the agricultural industry cannot manipulate or stimulate the demand for certain agricultural products. Surely it is a simple fact that whereas all people use food and buy it willingly, they can only buy a certain quantity of food. One cannot stimulate people to eat more putu porridge than they are able to consume. Some of us eat a little too much food and eventually develop health problems as a result, but in general it is true that the agricultural industry is simply not able to stimulate the demand for its products to such an extent that the demand will increase significantly.

It is as a result of this that the agricultural industry does not obtain its relative rightful share when economic development takes place in a country. When the standard of living rises in a country, one finds that the increased amount spent on agricultural products is not in proportion to the increase in the income of a household or individual. This is the so-called demand inelasticity of agricultural products. The families that achieve a higher standard of living prefer to spend relatively larger amounts on luxury goods, on non-agricultural goods, but they do not spend more, in proportion to their increased income, on agricultural products. For this reason, too, therefore, the agricultural industry cannot manipulate or stimulate the demand for its products.

These are characteristics unique to agriculture. They are characteristics that entail that the agricultural industry cannot compete with other sectors of the economy on the same basis. This is also the reason why there are marketing Acts even in the most capitalistic countries of the world to protect the agricultural industry, in view of its inherent characteristics and to ensure that the agricultural industry remains essentially sound. That, too, is why a Marketing Act was introduced in South Africa. We have 21 marketing boards which market and control the marketing of almost 90% of the total value of agricultural products. Various systems are used by the various control boards, depending on the characteristics of the products they are marketing. For example, we have a floor price system in the case of meat. At the moment we have a one-price-one-channel system in the wheat industry, as in the maize industry. We have a system of permits. We have a system of quotas which is used by the wine industry, for example. There is a pool system which is used in the wool industry, for example. Thus each of these 21 marketing boards uses systems of marketing adjusted to the specific characteristics of the specific product they control. These are among the most important reasons, as the hon member for Ladybrand pointed out, why we ought not to have a single marketing body in South Africa viz, because the characteristics of the various marketing products differ so widely from one another.

It is true that we have to constantly guard against the agricultural industry in South Africa building up a backlog in comparison with the other sectors in our economy. The agricultural industry must constantly be modernizing itself, and this goes for marketing as well. For that reason it is essential that consideration be given from time to time to the Marketing Act and its provisions, and that the control boards should see to the marketing of their specific products and that they should adapt themselves to the specific circumstances. Agriculture must ensure that it is indeed capable of competing to the maximum extent with the other sectors of the economy, and in addition, that it will develop as South Africa’s total economy develops. This amending Bill is an effort to modernize the Marketing Act, to meet new needs as regards the marketing of agricultural products, and for that reason I take great pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Speaker, the hon member was correct in his assumption that the CP would also support this measure. In this debate there has already been a wide-ranging discussion of the general underlying principles of and the necessity for our present Marketing Act, with which I naturally do not disagree. When criticism is levelled at the Marketing Act and in particular at our various control boards, it is frequently the result of ignorance. I do not want to suggest that it is the result of wilfulness. All I need do is ask what the position would have been last year in the wool industry, for example, if there had not been a body like the Wool Board, or what the position of the consumer in South Africa would have been today if there had not been a body like the Maize Board. The control board system has brought order into the marketing of agricultural produce in South Africa. In the past many mistakes were made, but they were rectified. Practical experience brought the mistakes to light. I certainly do not think that this amendment to the Marketing Act will be the last amendment either. Every living system has to adapt itself to the circumstances of the day. Every time we try to eliminate loopholes in an Act or a scheme, we have to accept that there will be people who will devise and employ methods to enrich themselves at the expense of the industry in general.

This brings me briefly to the matter of penalties that have been increased. There were objections from the PFP to the increase in the terms of imprisonment, but, as has already been said, the court retains its discretion. In addition we have found that no court will simply send someone to gaol if it can give him the option of paying a fine. If I might express criticism of the new penal provisions I would suggest that the provision of a fine of R5 000 as an alternative to two years imprisonment may be too low considering the present value of money. It has always been the standpoint of our courts that they would like to keep a person out of gaol and that his fine in proportion to the alternative of imprisonment should be read in conjuction with what he might be able to pay stay out of gaol. That is why one finds as a rule that it is difficult for the public to understand why different people are fined different amounts for the same offence. It depends on the man’s financial ability to pay. That is why I believe that a maximum fine of R5 000 is too low for a fortune-hunter who is making a great deal of money from the contravention of a scheme, and has already made a great deal of money in the past. I should therefore like to associate myself with the proposal made by the hon member for Mooi River. I believe he made out a very good case and that a similar increase should also be introduced for the other people to whom he referred.

An important possibility is now being created in clause 28 and in my opinion this will be of particular value to both the wool industry and the deciduous fruit industry in South Africa. From past experience and from the representations that have been submitted over a period of many years we know that for the sake of the farmers and our clients abroad the wool industry in particular has to be able to negotiate collective freight rates, which they have not been allowed to do. A possibility is now being created here, not only in the interests of the wool industry in South Africa but also in the interests of our overseas clients and this will be of tremendous value to our farmers.

One frequently hears that the control board system supposedly impinges on the “sacred” free market system, and this may be true. However, I remember that when the Wool Board first introduced its single channel marketing system for wool with reserve prices there was a tremendous storm of protest. Some of our clients and other people who had made a lot of money, and even some of our producers, started agitating in order to discredit the entire system. However, practice has shown that that new system which supposedly impinged so heavily on the free market system, was not only in the interests of the producers of that product but also in the interests of the manufacturer who used that product, to such an extent, in fact, that our overseas clients asked us: “Do you not think you should raise your reserve prices a little?” That would have been in their interests as well.

I do not think that any agricultural leader or well-informed farmer would ever ask us to deviate from the basic premises of our present Marketing Act, for if that were to happen we foresee nothing but chaos in agriculture in South Africa. Adaptations and adjustments were made in the past and will be made in future. As a matter of fact the measure before this House is also an adaptation, an adjustment, and is essential for the times in which we are living, and for that reason it gives us pleasure to support the legislation.

Mr Speaker, I find it gratifying that so many members in this House are unanimous on such a matter as agricultural marketing. Agricultural marketing is something which in general arouses certain reactions, but does so specifically from the Press in this country, and I think the hon member for Barberton pinpointed the problem when he said there was tremendous ignorance in this country about agricultural marketing, about how it functioned. In my opinion a great deal of the controversy which frequently erupts over this matter is in fact attributable to the fact that people do not know precisely what is happening, and are sometimes confronted with the end result only, from which they then draw their own conclusions. If they were to obtain the correct information and were able to see the matter in its correct perspective, the picture usually changes. That is why I find it gratifying that this subject is being dealt with here in this House today in a responsible and a sympathetic way. This does not mean that there are no faults. Any system has its problems, but the fact that willingness to examine this matter is being displayed is, to me, very gratifying.

If one examines the Marketing Act, to which we now wish to effect certain amendments, I cannot help recalling what older farmers in my community told me about the situation pertaining to the marketing agricultural produce in the days when they began to try to get something for agriculture in the way of legislation. I am now referring to the thirties, when absolute chaos prevailed, and when farmers were not certain from one day to another of the prices they could expect for their produce, while the consumers, too, did not know whether they would be able to obtain a certain product at all, regardless of what they were willing to pay for it. Things were terribly unstable. On the one hand the farmer did not know whether he was going to receive any price at all for his produce. On the other hand the consumer did not know either whether he would be able to obtain a product. This caused a problem which was intensively investigated. A solution was then found; of course not merely arbitrarily. After a comprehensive investigation it was decided that this entire problem should be regulated.

There is a large diversity of produce in this country, all of it different. It is therefore not possible to make a single system applicable to all the produce. Perhaps one should pause for a moment to consider the diversity of products. After all, one realizes from this what the real problem is, and also why there is such a great diversity of statutory boards. In South Africa there are a few basic agricultural products that are required to feed the population. The primary object with these products is in the first place to meet the needs of this country. Of course there are other products as well, for example wool, Karakul pelts, mohair, etc. These are products that cannot be fully utilized in South Africa itself. They are actually intended for the export trade. Consequently a different system is necessary in order to dispose of these products, a system which differs entirely from those which are employed in regard to wheat and maize, for example.

Furthermore, of course, there are other products which are not of such vital importance, and which therefore in turn require their own distinctive marketing methods. When one considers these various systems, it is apparent that these products are to a certain extent interdependent. It is not possible to devise a system which is applicable only to one specific product, while in the process totally ignoring all the other products. That was why the producers got together and made inputs in this connection. They realized that they had to lay down a principle by means of which they could operate the schemes they intended developing.

An important principle in this connection is consequently contained in the principal Act. This principle is that one particular marketing system should not create circumstances as a result of which one specific product is detrimentally affected by the decisions taken by other producers. This is a very important principle. If this principle were not maintained it would lead once again to chaos because undisciplined actions and other negative practices could lead to exhorbitant profits being made by people who are not compelled to subject themselves to the principles of a system. It is such people who frequently cause a specific system to fail. For that reason rules and regulations are necessary to make it possible for these schemes and systems to function.

But one should also take a rather broader view of these matters. They are not merely intended to regulate matters. Until 1930, agriculture was a difficult industry. Owing to a relatively faulty agricultural technology it was not easy, for example, to plant more maize in one year than in the previous year simple because a need for it existed. Factors such as relatively untrained manpower, crude, primitive machinery and the intermittent availability of fertilizer all had a restrictive effect on production in agriculture. The result was that agriculture could not react to a market stimulus, for example, with a view to a higher price. When technology was improved as a result of research, thus enabling the agricultural industry to react, we were dealing with the problem of over-production for the very first time. Animal production, too, was stabilized in that research was carried out which successfully helped to solve pathological conditions. Innoculation programmes were undertaken, with the result that the animal population became consistent. Some of the risk factors were therefore eliminated. That is why systems then had to be introduced to cope with these new circumstances. If there is a high price for a product today and everyone is able to charge any price he likes for that product, it is in the long run going to lead to chaos in this country,

When we consider these schemes, therefore, we find that basically there are three main schemes under which produce is marketed in this country. In the first place, there are prices for agricultural produce which are fixed in advance. It is with these fixed prices that the Press experiences its greatest problem. I am referring here to maize, wheat and certain dairy products, because it is only in those three cases that prices are fixed by the Government. Few people realize, however, the amount of work that is put into this price determination. It would perhaps be interesting to pause for a moment to ascertain how such a price determination occurs. A great deal of the misfortune which sometimes afflict us is a result of ignorance on this score.

In the first place, there is a board which considers the matter and makes its inputs. The board give attention to various aspects and these are then submitted to the Marketing Council and approved by the Minister. The various producers and organized agriculture are consulted. A very important aspect is that it is frequently said that the marketing campaign of a scheme or the board dealing with the marketing of a certain commodity is one-sided. That is not true. When there is intervention in the free economy— because the moment one appoints people to exercise a certain measure of control it is intervention—the control is spread over the entire spectrum as far as producers and consumers are concerned, as well as people in the trade who deal with that product. When control is, therefore, applied, it is spread over the widest possible spectrum, while in the free economy the spectrum is in fact narrowed down because only certain people make the inputs. That is what would happen if there were a free economy here—in the long run agriculture will be controlled by a few people. What will happen then as far as price determinations are concerned? Then we would be saddled with a great dilemma.

What are all the aspects that are considered? I shall mention only a few matters. In the first place, there is the relationship between supply and demand. Secondly, there are the production costs, and the supply reaction of a specific price is also taken into consideration. There are also the general levels of agricultural prices in relationship to other prices, and the interrelationship of agricultural prices. In the fourth place, there is the relationship between local prices and world prices. Fifthly, there is the general economic policy of the Government. Other factors which are applicable in the specific industry are also taken into consideration. Consequently we see that the prices which are fixed for those three commodities are not plucked out of the air.

There is also a second category of marketing boards which are for example, primarily aimed at competing on the export market. We are now referring to the single-channel pool system. Let us take the case of wool— to which the hon member for Barberton referred—as an example. It is sorted by a single organization and marketed as the purchaser wants it and is then sold at an auction to the people who want to buy it according to the price they are prepared to pay, depending on the supply. Consequently this is a free market principle, and the entire industry is regulated on that basis. This system has interesting advantages. No price is fixed. Of the 21 marketing boards there are only three that actually fix prices. All the others have built-in free market principles.

There is also a third category of control boards, and these deal with the surplus elimination schemes. If too much of a certain commodity is produced for South Africa’s requirements and the world market cannot or will not absorb the surplus, for example in the case of meat—people do not want to import our meat for certain reasons, for example foot-and-mouth disease or something of that nature-that suplus has to be eliminated. At certain times we have to cope with surpluses. For that reason one needs surplus elimination schemes in order to get rid of them. The same thing happens in the egg industry. It is as a result of these surplus elimination schemes that those industries are able to survive and provide the country with a constant supply of those particular commodities.

Let us consider the marketing boards in South Africa. We find that there are 21 such marketing boards. In actual fact, each one of them operates separately. In a certain respect, therefore, there are actually 21 marketing schemes. If it should happen that a mistake is made in one scheme—it is possible that mistakes may be made, for no one is perfect—it does not mean to say that the other 20 have also made a mistake. In fact, there are some of these schemes that are of such a nature that people come from abroad to see how it should be done. The mistake which is very generally made is to condemn the entire marketing scheme, if a mistake should be made, regardless of whether the mistake lay with that industry or with some other industry.

I want to consider these various marketing boards for a while. When I look at their finances, I find a very interesting aspect. In most cases these boards have built up surplus funds, surplus funds which are levied on the producer price, and not from the consumers. The producers have set aside a portion of the money they received for the lean years, and out of these moneys they have created facilities for themselves in order to regulate the marketing system even further.

We find in the Press that people object to this money being invested in a building, for example. Surely that is a good hedge against inflation. After all, that money has not been wasted. It gives a person security that one can borrow against when the need arises. There are various examples of this kind, but now it is being implied that these agricultural industries, that are making provision for themselves for the lean years, are doing so at the expense of the consumer. In fact, if it were not for them, the consumer would in the long run be in a far more difficult position.

We can go further, and there is something very interesting which emerges when one considers the reserve funds of the various boards. One sees that within these control boards, the industries of the boards which have high reserve funds continue to be relatively stable under these difficult circumstances, while the industries of those boards that do not have high reserves, or that have no reserves, are experiencing problems.

There are various reasons why that difference arises. There are political reasons and there are also circumstantial reasons, but I do not want to go into that. To my mind, the principle that one should look after one’s own interests, is very important. Perhaps this is an aspect which we shall have to look into in future. I do not think that Parliament should touch this problem. This aspect should be solved within organized agriculture, and organized agriculture will have to provide the legislature of this country with a solution which we can then implement by law, but we shall not be able to do so on our part because it would then create major problems for us.

I can indicate what these various reserve funds are contributing. It goes all the way from an amount of R102 million for wool to as low as R0 for other industries. [Interjections.] I hear a remark from the sidelines that there are some with minus amounts, but I shall not comment on that. The principle is very important.

When we, therefore, have certain control boards dealing internally with the marketing of agricultural products and they have funds, they have created order and have over a long period of time looked after their own interests, we sometimes find the problem that as the result of financial problems that have arisen, it is necessary once again to take a critical look at the internal operation of the Marketing Act as it applies to agricultural industries. This, in turn, gives rise to a certain sector of the Press misinterpreting things in agriculture. I think that the agricultural industry is strong enough to iron out its problems itself, without unnecessary spectres being conjured up by the Press. In the long run, many people are going to pay a heavy price for those spectres if they are not laid to rest in time.

I think that enough has been said about the various clauses of the Bill. I think that in future it will be necessary, from time to time, to take a new look at the Marketing Act. Fundamentally the Act has one object, namely to lay down principles according to which the producers must act. In my opinion, the most important principle of the Marketing Act is that there must be price stability so that supply and demand can be allowed to operate to the advantage of the producer and the consumer. Within the principles laid down, the Marketing Act seeks to keep the difference between the price received by the producer and the price paid by the consumer as small as possible. This can be done, on the one hand, by marketing the product as efficiently as possible and, on the other, by delivering the product to the market as productively as possible. Therefore this Act also makes provision for that. As circumstances change and technology improves, it will remain necessary to effect amendments to the legislation precisely in order to give effect to this principle. An important point which is frequently overlooked is that the Marketing Act enables South Africa to supply the consumers with some of the best quality agricultural produce. There are few countries in the world where people are able to buy produce of the same quality across the counter as we are, in fact, able to do here in our country. This is an important point, because a service factor is an integral part of a marketing scheme or a grading scheme. It is being applied separately by every industry and to the benefit of everyone, and this is something which is frequently overlooked.

There is one matter I should still like to raise, namely that an attempt is being made to solve the problems in agriculture by means of the SA Agricultural Union. An understanding of the producer’s position is a very important facet, because if we are going to drift away from one another, major problems are going to arise in agriculture. I think that the disposition that has been displayed here today will have a ripple effect beyond the confines of this House and contribute to our being able to solve any problems which may arise in future to the satisfaction of everyone.

Mr Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the speech of the hon member for Prieska. There are very few points he has raised which we on this side of the House cannot agree with. I have a point I want to raise in regard to the one-channel fixed-price schemes where we differ slightly, but I will come to this later in the course of my speech.

There is one thing I would like to raise right now. The hon member referred to many of the factors which are taken into consideration at arriving at a fixed price, for example the position as to local supply and demand, the international situation, the general state of the economy, and so on. I submit that it is very difficult, taking all these factors into consideration, to arrive at one exact price. In the end there must be a certain degree of subjectivity. I put it to the hon member, perhaps he will agree with me, that exactly the same factors can be—and I believe are—taken into account when a floor price is determined. I will come back to this point later.

The hon member for Albany indicated that we will be supporting this legislation. We do have a few minor amendments which we will move during the Committee Stage, but I believe this is a very opportune time for us to debate a few aspects relating to the Marketing Act. We are firstly on the eve of the debate on the hon the Minister’s vote, and this is of course one of the main Acts which the hon the Minister administers.

We are secondly also on the eve of receiving a White Paper on agricultural policy, to which we have looked forward for some time.

Thirdly, conditions in agriculture are extremely serious at the moment. It is generally accepted that there will have to be some structural changes in agriculture. The mechanism by which these will have to be brought about will most likely be through the Marketing Act or some amendment to it. Referring again to the Government’s White Paper, if there is any change in Government policy, it will obviously have to be brought about by changes in the Marketing Act itself.

I have a document here which was prepared by the South African Agricultural Union which I think most hon members in agricultural study groups have received. It is their submission to the hon the Minister regarding his White Paper and I want to quote very briefly two paragraphs from Chapter 4 in this memorandum. It outlines their general philosophy towards agricultural policy. I quote from paragraph 4.2.1:

I quote further from paragraph 4.2.3:

This document, from which I have quoted these two paragraphs gives a broad outline of what the SAAU would like to see, and these are two extremely important statements. They indicate very correctly that agricultural policy must fit in with overall national policy and that agricultural policy goals must be set accordingly.

As regards the issue of national policy, great stress has been placed in recent years on moving towards a more market-oriented, free enterprise economic system. One only needs to think back to the Carlton and Good Hope Conferences. The SAAU are now placing some stress on this and the Maize Producers Organization also places stress on moving towards a more market-oriented system.

Once one has an overall policy objective, the question which should be asked is to what extent the tool at our disposal, the Marketing Act, enables us to achieve this particular policy objective. One must obviously have a policy first to know where one is going, and then one must know whether the Marketing Act is helping towards achieving those objectives. We have no quarrel at all with the objectives as outlined by the SAAU, but there are ways in which certain sections of the Act are applied that need to be looked at and changed. Very briefly, the Marketing Act makes provision for the establishment of a Marketing Council and Control Boards and for the various powers they can exercise and the various schemes they can introduce. I should like to look at one or two of these aspects. To start off with, I should like to look very briefly at the National Marketing Council. We on this side of the House would like to see the National Marketing Council have more powers than they do at the moment in order that they can fulfil a co-ordinating function better. We know that it is their job to advise the Minister. No doubt they do this. We also know that there is a co-ordinating committee on control boards. At the same time, however, we would like this National Marketing Council to have a few more teeth than they have right now so that they can perhaps eliminate some of the problems that arise with 21 Control Boards all acting independently, and often causing distortions in production.

Then we come to Control Boards themselves. We do not want anybody in any way to think that we are against Control Boards. Many of them do a fine job and we are fully behind most of the provisions of the Marketing Act. The Wool Board, mentioned by two previous speakers today, is an example of a control board which actually does a remarkably good job. However, in connection with control boards one aspect with which I will not deal at any great length at all today, is the question of consumer representation on control boards. Where control boards exercise the powers given them by the one-channel fixed-price schemes, we are virtually giving these boards a monopoly. We would like to see greater consumer representation on these boards. Where a board does not have the powers which, let us say, a board operating a one-channel fixed-price scheme has, it does not necessarily have those monopolistic powers and there is a certain degree of price flexibility. Then, of course, the question of consumer representation is not so important. That, of course, is assuming we continue with one-channel fixed-price schemes.

The next point I should like to come to, one raised by the hon member for Prieska earlier on, is the question of the one-channel fixed-price schemes. We have already heard about the basis on which the prices are fixed. Often, I submit to the House, the prices are fixed at far too high a level. It is these schemes which have come in for most criticism in the past. I believe that, if we eliminated these one-channel fixed-price schemes, there would be very little criticism in the Press of the activities of the control boards. We believe that these schemes have resulted in many bad side effects in agriculture. First of all, they have resulted in a distortion in the production process.

Then you must withdraw the subsidies as well.

I agree with that. The subsidies could, in fact, be better utilized elsewhere, for instance on agricultural research. They can also probably be better utilized as subsidies on inputs at source. These one-channel fixed-price schemes have, for example, aggravated the effects of the drought because many crops have been planted in areas which are marginal. I do not think that many hon members in the House will dispute that fact. Where the prices have been set too high, one finds that land prices have also increaced because increased profits have been capitalized into land values. I believe that one-channel fixed-price schemes have caused this. There have, of course, been ripple effects on all the other agricultural sectors because many of these products such as maize represent a basic input for other agricultural sectors. I believe that the time is now ripe for the hon the Minister to make a clear statement on whether it is the Government’s intention to move away from the one-channel fixed-price schemes or whether it is the Government’s intention to maintain the price-fixing powers which different boards have had, bearing in mind the policy statements of the SA Agricultural Union, which I referred to earlier, and also the Government’s intention to move towards a free market economy. There are of course many other aspects of the operation of these boards which we believe work against the free enterprise system, for example the registration of bakeries and butcheries. Why must these people have to apply to the boards for licences in order to operate? The mere fact that these licences command a fairly considerable price in the marketplace indicates that some distortion is taking place in the free market system. I believe butcheries and bakeries should be allowed to be opened without going through all the rigid formalities of applying for a licence.

I now come to the final type of scheme I want to deal with today, namely the floor-price scheme. We have no problem with floor-price schemes at all. In general they are well operated. The control boards administering floor-price schemes operate as a speculator. In other words, a speculator buys when prices are low and sells when prices are higher. In the process he usually makes a profit, and if he does not he goes broke. In the process he also stabilizes prices. Then of course we get other boards which in addition to operating a floor-price system, also operate a quota system, for example the Meat Board. Once one operates a quota or a permit system in conjunction with a floor price, then one makes a mockery of the whole system of a floor-price scheme. It is pointless to set a floor price. One can set it at whatever level one likes and then merely adjust the quota accordingly, to realize the price that one wants. We are totally against a board having the power to set a quota and at the same time to set a floor price. We believe that permits should be more freely available and we also believe that the whole permit system and quota system should gradually be relaxed and phased out over time. It is only when this has happened that the board can start performing the functions of the speculator that it should be performing in the market. At present the Meat Board is making a loss, and it is therefore hardly performing the functions of an efficient speculator at all.

While we are discussing the Marketing Act and talking about the Meat Board, many of us are also concerned about the high degree of concentration that exists in the meat industry. It is very well known—it has been referred to in the Eloff Commission report on the meat industry—that the degree of concentration with Gencor, ICS and Vleissentraal, as well as the degree of vertical integration, is far too high and cause for concern. As far as this is concerned we should like to see that a commision with far broader terms of reference than the Eloff Commission, again look at the Meat Board.

Finally, something which we on this side of the House would like to see—we believe it is important—is the change in the name of control boards. We do not want to follow NP strategy of changing a name and then pretending that they have something else. What we should like to see is a change from “control boards” to “marketing boards”. [Interjections.] They would then be performing the job they should be doing. Let us take the Wool Board, which was brought up earlier today, as an example. I believe the wool Board is functioning as a marketing board. The Citrus Board is another. They go out and try to sell their producers products. There are many examples—I mentioned just a few today—where I believe the boards, while over-emphasizing the control aspects, are not getting out and selling the farmers products like they should be. For example, we had a Bill in this House last year on the Dairy Industry but why are there still no butter blends on the market? I cannot understand that. I believe with a good marketing exercise there is a potential killing to be made on butter blends. Why has that not been done? Why do abattoirs, for example, close on public holidays prior to the Easter weekend so that meat prices soar sky high? They know months and months ahead that there is an increased demand for meat on long weekends. If they act as marketing boards, they would in fact be working overtime and making sure that there is sufficient meat available and that we do not have these increases in prices. For example, why do the boards not investigate the sale of milk in bulk in townships and similar areas? I am sure that milk could be disposed of in bulk far more cheaply and easily. While the hon the Minister of Health and Welfare may introduce all sorts of stupid health regulations, with all due respect to Health and Welfare, I believe that we are applying First World marketing standards to Third World situations. [Interjections.] I believe that the marketing boards could do a great deal in this particular respect, and I hope the hon the Minister will discuss this with the Minister of Health and Welfare.

One could ask why right now there are queues of farmers waiting for permits from the Cato Ridge abattoir. These farmers are prepared to sell at prices far below the current floor prices. I believe that these farmers should not be prevented from selling because of the fact that there is a higher floor price. A situation has developed where Natal farmers, for example, have given up a certain portion of their quotas in order to assist farmers in drought-stricken areas. However, cattle from the drought-stricken areas have stopped coming in and feed lot cattle from other areas have started coming in to the detriment of Natal’s farmers. Here the Natal farmers have given up their own quota in an effort to assist their colleagues elsewhere—and that did happen for a short period when there was a glut of lower grade animals—but now feed lot animals are being sent to the market from other areas and I believe our marketing boards should not permit that type of thing to happen.

We have raised a few aspects regarding the boards which I hope the hon the Minister will in due course consider. We will be supporting this legislation and are looking forward to developments during the next few months. Once we have seen the Government’s White Paper on agriculture we look forward to further developments in this field.

Mr Speaker, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South, and I want to thank him for the fact that he and his party also support these amendments. However, the hon member also took the opportunity of making certain proposals concerning improvements to the marketing system, and I should like to inquire what he really means when he says that we should work for a freer market mechanism, but then goes on to say in the next breath that our control boards should become marketing boards. If I had understood what he meant by that, I could perhaps have reacted in a meaningful way to the hon member’s remarks. However, the two aspects to which he referred are so contradictory that I really cannot react to them in a meaningful way.

I am also in favour of a freer market mechanism. In fact, I believe that every hon member on this side is in favour of it, but what is the principle which is already laid down by the Marketing Act? It is that one should not try to dominate, but to promote order. A freer market mechanism is a means of creating order, and as circumstances and requirements necessitate it, this free market mechanism will automatically begin to perform its function.

The hon member for Prieska made a few statements about Very important matters of principle. I want to agree with these basic principles which he stated. Generally speaking, however, I am also critical of some of them, in the sense that he said that one control body should not dominate any other and that there should also be mutual understanding for one another’s problems. I agree with that. At the same time, however, we cannot allow a situation where one industry has to make sacrifices for the sake of another. Every industry has a certain input cost, and in terms of that input cost, the entrepreneur must be enabled to make a profit. When other commodities are affected as a result, we should be careful when we allege that they should not take action against one another. However, these are aspects which could actually be better and more meaningfully defined by saying that we should recognize one another’s problems, and should then build from there without hampering one another in the process of control.

Furthermore, reference has also been made to the question of funds or reserve funds for the stabilization of the respective industries. I should like to ask the hon member one question. If the Maize Board had a stabilization or a reserve fund, how big would that fund have to be, in the circumstances in which maize farmers find themselves today, to be able to save the farmers?

R700 million.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs has given us a reply off the cuff. Such a fund would have to amount to R700 million. How could that large amount of money be obtained? It would only be obtained by reserving a certain amount in the price structure and paying it into such a fund. That would mean, of sourse, that either producer or the consumer would have to contribute it. If both had to contribute it, is it not just possible that the producer would have been worse off at the present stage than he actually is? Moreover, would the consumer not have had to pay a much higher price for consumer goods than is actually the case? It depends on the amount of money involved in the activities of a specific board. If it is a board with a fairly small capital involvement, it is meaningful to do something like this. However, there is a limit which one cannot exceed in this kind of stabilization. However, I should prefer to react briefly to certain aspects of this again during the Committee Stage. Then we can conduct a meaningful debate on it so that we may obtain greater clarity with regard to the intention behind some of the standpoints that have been stated here.

Reference has also been made in this debate to the historic background of the Marketing Act. Furthermore, reference has been made to the commission of inquiry in 1973, and to the results which flowed from that. It has also been pointed out that the control board system consists of a diversity of schemes. It appears from a report of the 1973 commission of inquiry, which was tabled in this House in 1976, that it has a bearing on three fundamental standpoints that have been stated here. In the first place, it was said that Government control should to a certain extent be regarded as essential. Not a single hon member of this House could deny today that this is still applicable. In the second place, there must be sound economic principles with a view to ensuring stability. The same applies today. Thirdly, processing and distribution must be promoted. That principle, too, is still applicable, and we still cannot alter these three principles.

Within these three principles, therefore, I wish to state a few standpoints. I wish to express my conviction that we have to a large extent been successful in maintaining these standpoints up to now, in spite of a great deal of criticism and antagonism which has arisen from time to time. In order to give effect to this principle, certain amendments are made to the Marketing Act almost every year. When economic circumstances necessitate it, this Parliament never hesitates to promote these principles. We must also admit that the sector which undoubtedly enjoys the greatest measure of protection is that of the producers. However, it is also in the interests of commerce, industry and the consumer. If there is no stability on the part of the producer, it is impossible to negotiate in a meaningful way for an arrangement which will be in the interests of the consumer in allowing him to obtain his food at a reasonable price. A great deal of criticism had recently been voiced with regard to the control board function in particular, and it has been alleged that the control board system leads to unnecessary expense.

What are the functions of a control board? They involve grading, storage, handling and railing and other functions of that nature which a control board has to exercise. I ask myself, therefore: if the control board did not perform these functions, what would it cost commerce and industry to perform these functions? I believe that it would cost them much more, because then it would no longer be done in a co-ordinated way. As soon as there is a lack of co-ordination in this connection, it is bound to lead to increased costs.

The fact that all the control boards have a grading system means that the consumer knows, if he is buying a grade 1 product, that he is in fact buying that particular product. However, if it had to be graded in an unco-ordinated manner, the consumer would not know what he was really buying, and that is very important. It is extremely important that we should know in this country that the consumer may have the satisfaction of knowing that the control which is exercised over a certain product protects him in that connection,

There is also the protection which it affords commerce and industry. This is clearly evident from the demand which exists for millers licences, ordinary agencies’ or bakers’ licences, butchers’ licences, etc. After all, none of these licences would have been in such demand if matters had not been properly organized in this connection. What is the effect of this? A butcher’s or baker’s licence is granted in accordance with the need which exists, so that there will not be a total duplication of services in one area and a total lack of services in other areas. Surely it is important that the consumer should realize that if we depart from this, there may be areas where no services will be rendered at all, because people would concentrate on the areas where they could perhaps achieve a greater turnover. Then more outlets would be created in the more densely populated areas, but each of the distributors still has to be able to make a profit. This would mean that the prices of the products would go up, because each of the entrepreneurs has to make a decent living.

The whole of the Marketing Act contains such comprehensive provisions to ensure orderly marketing that anyone who tampers with it should consider very carefully what he is doing. He should consider very carefully what his future is going to be if he wants to break away from the Marketing Act.

I want to refer to another aspect. This concerns the services rendered by members of control boards. One could almost say that the members of control boards render a service to their fellow men, because the compensation received by such a member is of such a nature that it could never be economically justified for him to serve on such a control board. I submit that every member of a control board renders a service to his fellow men in return for a small fee which may just pay for his board and lodging on the day on which he is doing this work. We should greatly appreciate what these people are sacrificing in the interests of the industry for which they serve on these control boards.

It is also a fact that control boards co-operate very closely with the Minister. It is also important that we should examine this. Control boards have certain functions which they have to perform subject to what the Minister may and may not allow. Apart from a control board, there is also a Marketing Board, and in addition to the Marketing Board, there is the department. In order to co-ordinate these three, the Minister has to take certain decisions. I do not believe that any Minister would take any action, on the basis of the information provided to him, which was not in the interest of the industry. If any Minister did things which were not in the interests of the industry or which were not justifiable, it would very soon become known. My experience of the conduct of our present Minister and our former Ministers of Agriculture is that they have always taken certain decisions after having consulted all these parties, and that they had never given a decision which was not in the interests of the industry concerned as a whole. [Interjections.]

Parliament has a responsibility as far as orderly government in this country is concerned. I am glad that this responsibility is recognized in the unanimity which exists among hon members with regard to this Bill. We may sometimes have heated arguments about politics, but if we adopted certain politically orientated standpoints for the sake of political expediency, we should be doing South Africa an injustice. Consequently, I wish to give my full support to all the amendments in this Bill. If any of the amendments creates any problem in any industry in future, we shall amend it in a meaningful way so as to overcome that problem. The history of the Marketing Act has already proved this. Why should we adopt the standpoint, when it comes to possible misinterpretations of the intention behind the legislation, that it cannot be any further amended? I believe that the necessary adjustments can be made as circumstances dictate.

Mr Speaker, apparently the hon member for Parys did not understand very clearly what the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South said. In the point of view he stated, he did not criticize the principles of the Marketing Act as such and the reasons for its existence but was bringing forward certain problems which exist between the free market system and the system adopted by control boards, problems which must arise in a Marketing Act which exercises control in a supposedly free economic system. I think the hon the Minister will agree with this. The point which the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South raised ?and which is of great importance, is that for each product there has to be, of necessity, a different kind of marketing. You cannot have one fixed system for selling any type of product, and this is the problem to which the hon member referred.

The hon member for Parys raised the point that a tremendous amount of money would be required by the Government if there were to be a stabilization fund. I would like to point out to the hon member that according to a former Minister of Agriculture there was a stabilization fund at one time amounting to about R500 million. Is that correct?

That figure is rather high, but it could have been so.

We on this side of the House support this measure fully because it amends a system which already exists. However, our plea is that the time has come when a full investigation should be instituted once again, in the light of changed conditions and a new South Africa, into the whole system of the marketing of agricultural products. There are two reasons why this should be done. When we are dealing with agriculture we are dealing with an entirely different system of production and marketing than for example exists in industry. If you are dealing with ordinary industry, you are dealing with a system of increasing returns, while in agriculture you have a completely different system because you are dealing with a system of decreasing returns.

Secondly, it is absolutely essential that food and products required by industry should be produced and that people should be kept on the land. For that reason it is not possible to have a completely free economic system applying to agriculture. We must face the fact that, despite that, the problems continue to exist. It is necessary to change the system and that is why I want to reiterate the plea made by the hon member for Albany when he asked the hon the Minister if the time had not arrived for the appointment of a commission to investigate the whole question of the marketing of agricultural products. It may be that the commission suggests that the present marketing system, with a few amendments, is the best available or that certain aspects need to be changed, but it is absolutely necessary that an investigation be made.

I took the trouble to look at the original debate which took place in 1937 when the present Act was introduced. When one reads the speech made by the then Minister of Agriculture, one sees that the same problems which were mentioned here this afternoon, were mentioned then. It therefore appears that we have not found a solution to all our problems, despite the fact that we have this present legislation.

Do you want the appointment of another select committee?

I want to see the appointment of a commission so that people from the outside can be appointed to it as well. I will give the reason for this which was also stated by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South.

Take the case of the Marketing Council. As it exists at the moment, it does not have the correct composition. One surely requires people on this council who know how to market products. At the moment it consists mostly of people who are economists and who know nothing about marketing. Economist are people who study the market and make predictions about certain aspects of the market. One should have a council that can advise the Minister on actual marketing.

We should get Harry Oppenheimer.

Exactly. What is more, I think the mistake made with the Marketing Council is that all the members are permanent members. I think the time has come when one should have not only a small number of permanent members but also a number of people appointed from various industries who have a knowledge of marketing. The object is to sell the farmer’s product at the best possible price which is also reasonable to the consumer. I believe this is one of the most important things that should be done.

The designation “control board” should be changed to “marketing board” and each marketing board should then examine the system of sale as best suits its particular product, guided by the fact that there is an agricultural policy which determines what products are required in particular countries.

One problem which exists at the moment with the one-channel system is that there is a tendency for people to go into the production of certain products because they have a higher profitability, irrespective of whether there are surpluses or not. The hon the Minister will agree that this happens in the case of certain control boards.

Will you serve on the Marketing Council?

Yes, I will if I am asked. The hon the Minister seems to think that I talk without any knowledge of this particular subject. I want to inform the hon the Minister that I have been associated with marketing councils for the best part of 30 years, not as a producer but as a marketeer. I was able, as a result of my knowledge of marketing, to expand one particular phase of one particular industry, a phase which had been completely neglected, into quite an important phase in that industry.

And you became a wealthy man. [Interjections.]

Well, so has that hon Minister. Marketing is very much more than merely being able to sell. It is the ability of inducing people to buy and also telling what is best to buy. That covers a wide field. One of the basic problems resulting in bad marketing, I should like to tell the hon the Minister, is that most of the control boards do not have people on them who know anything about marketing. Most of them only know a tremendous amount about production. The result is that they tend to look at only one side, viz the production of the specific product.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member how it is possible, if he knows so much about marketing, that he cannot succeed in marketing the policy of his party? [Interjections.]

Because there is a control board that stops him.

Sir, I can answer the hon member quite simply. You see, Sir, that hon member serves on a control board which manipulates the number of voters that go into each and every constituency, which makes it much more difficult for me …

Order! What Bill is the hon member discussing now?

Sir, this is relevant to control boards. I am talking about an electoral control board, as opposed to a marketing control board. As a result, I have to deal with something like 20 000 buyers, who have to buy me, as against 3 000 in the case of the hon member for Walvis Bay. Of course his task is easier than mine and less expensive! I hope that that answers the hon member.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister— and I do so in all sincerity—whether it is correct that agricultural marketing or the marketing of any product should actually fall under the Minister of Agriculture? Does the hon the Minister not think that marketing should really fall under the hon the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism?

That is a very good question, and I shall reply to it.

I would honestly like the hon the Minister to answer that, because the hon the Minister is faced with a conflict which as important consequences. He is faced with a conflict in that he has to carry out agricultural policy and try to increase production in South Africa which on many occasions puts him in a very difficult position when the producers confront him with problems of an economic nature and particularly in relation to prices. I should like the hon the Minister to say whether what I have suggested would not be possible. The reason why I mention this is that once upon a time there were two Ministers concerned with this, viz a Minister responsible for agricultural marketing and a Minister who dealt with production. Now there is really only one Minister.

Can you give an example of that anywhere in the Western World?

No, I am not asking about the position in the rest of the world. I am merely asking the hon the Minister a question.

The next question I should like to put to the hon the Minister is whether there is not an unnecessary multiplicity of boards—I have brought this up before in the discussion of one of the votes. Let us take the fruit industry, for instance. There we have the Canning Fruit Board, the Dried Fruit Board and the Deciduous Fruit Board.

And the Citrus Board.

Yes, and in addition to that there is the Citrus Board.

And the Banana Control Board.

Yes. The hon the Minister is quite right. I forgot about the bananas. Let us deal with the first three which I mentioned, namely the Deciduous Fruit Board, the Dried Fruit Board and the Canning Fruit Board. They are all competing for the same raw material. [Interjections.] Oh yes, they are. They are all buying fruit for their particular purpose. The one is selling it in a fresh form, a second is selling it in a canned form and a third is selling it in a dried form. The result is that there is competition among those three boards.

Let us take the case of apricots. The one board says it does not need apricots for canning and tells farmers to take out their trees. The other board may say that it needs apricots for drying because it can get a good price for dried apricots. That is actually what has happened. The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs understands that as well. I think the time has come for the marketing of all fruit to be consolidated into one marketing board. I do not see the necessity for having a different control board for one particular type of agricultural product. The consolidated marketing board could have separate departments for various fruits.

That is a very good idea.

Yes, but one only has one problem. How does one break down the empires that have already come into existence? That is the hon the Minister’s political problem.

I want to bring another matter to the hon the Minister’s attention. Does he not think that the time has arrived for the establishment of a futures market in South Africa? In the United States of America and in other parts of the world there are futures markets where one has a floor price and a futures market. This means that the individual farmer now has an opportunity to even sell in advance and be paid in advance, thereby getting the necessary capital that he requires for carrying out his farming operations. Surely the introduction of a futures market in South Africa will improve the whole situation in relation to the marketing of agricultural products. I should like to hear what the hon the Minister has to say about that. Perhaps that might help to change many of the problems that we are experiencing now.

I have with me an article written by Mr S T Bringlett of the SA Agricultural Union, an article entitled “Agricultural pricing and structural policy”. I only want to refer to the five basic principles which he lays down. He says:

Later on in the article he deals with the whole question of a proper agricultural policy for South Africa, and indicates what its requirements will be in the future. He then goes on to the second principle, and I quote:

I agree fully that intervention in the free functioning of the economy should take place only when it is necessary in the interests of the country. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, agriculture enjoys a special place and requires a degree of controlled marketing. One can no longer have an open and free market for agricultural products.

I hope that we never reach the stage that the situation of control marketing has reached in Europe, for instance. In an article in the Economist under the heading “After the milk mountain, can the summit be reached?” we read that the various countries in the EEC wanted to increase their production of milk by 3% per annum while the actual demand was only growing by 1% per annum. The result has been that the EEC has nearly broken down because of the subsidies that have to be given to the farmers in order to meet this particular problem. They want to produce 3% more per annum for the next three years—in other words, they want to increase production by 10%—whereas the actual consumption of milk products is only increasing by 3%. Now that is not the type of marketing that I believe we should go in for. In the United States they have a different system of a floor price or even the control of production. However, the first part of the statement by Mr Brink is very important indeed. He says:

I want to conclude my speech by referring to the conflict that has arisen as to what role private enterprise should play in agriculture. The hon the Minister knows what I am getting at because I have made representations to him on behalf of private traders. Ever since the Marketing Act came into existence there has been a tendency for private enterprise to be pushed out. The private trader has a tough time and he is being pushed out because of the system of who is on the control board and who the control boards favour in regard to storage, the appointment of agents and also in regard to the distribution of whatever product it is particularly in time of shortage. The people who have to pay the actual taxes are gradually being eliminated from handling agricultural products, and I think that this is something that the hon the Minister should really pay attention to. The question is, where is the trader going to come into the whole business? I raise the case of the Dried Bean Control Board, for instance, where it appears on a floor price and it is a free-for-all. Co-operatives and private traders can buy beans on speculation and then sell them again. In the meantime there is a floor price at which the control board buys the beans. On the other hand there are other control boards that do not have this system and this creates tremendous difficulties because it is gradually eliminating the private trader. It is true that private enterprise comes into it in the wheat and maize sectors because eventually they have to sell a large quantity of their products to the millers, for instance, but they are actually buyers and not traders. I am talking about the people who actually trade in the market and help to establish a price. The millers buy at a fixed price because they require maize for the manufacture of mealiemeal or wheat for the manufacture of flour. However, it is a different proposition when it comes to who is actually handling the product because the whole of the Marketing Act is based on one word and that is the word “sell”. It is not to whom one sells but those people who participate in the selling, and here I ask the hon the Minister to give attention to the problem of where private enterprise is going to come in, also in the process of selling products between the farmer and the final consumer. The final consumer may not necessarily be the man who eats the mealiemeal but the man who actually produces it. After that it is a different problem. Yet all is a question of marketing?

Mr Speaker, I listened to the hon member for Bezuidenhout with a great deal of interest. It is correct that he himself was involved in one of the agricultural industries, as he himself said. Who does not know that the hon member for Bezuidenhout was a great cheesemaker? We all appreciate Melrose cheese. However, I would venture to tell the hon member for Bezuidenhout today that without the system of control, as far as marketing in the field in which he was active is concerned as well, he would not have been nearly as successful a businessman as he eventually was. [Interjections.] I appreciate the hon member’s support for the present legislation. Now he is asking for the appointment of a commission, however, I want to put it to the hon member that marketing and control, as we know it today, has already been practised for 50 years. Of course, the very best way of effecting change in control in South Africa is by way of evolution. This is what is continually taking place. The Bill we are discussing at present is just another example of the evolutionary change that is continually taking place in our system of control boards.

Whilst one is very grateful for the tone of the speeches made in this debate today, I would nevertheless venture to say that these speeches are not really related to what is said about this outside. I am really very pleasantly surprised at the support for the principle of control as such from all sides of this House. However, I am afraid that every now and then one hears in speeches and in newspapers and magazine articles how control is being criticized—precisely the opposite of what was said here today—and how the consumer is often encouraged to seek the cause of everything that goes wrong with him in the system of control. I think this is a great pity. For example, I have here with me an article which appeared recently in Volkshandel, and which deals specifically with the Wheat Board. Before I say anything further about this, I first want to state my interest in this matter. I am a member of the Wheat Board. The headline of this article specifically reads: “Koringraad skepper van monopolieë”.

I want to state categorically today that nothing is further removed from the truth than a allegation of this nature. It is very clear that people who follow the popular trend today and who shout the slogan of anti-control, have no idea whatsoever of what the situation looked like before the original Act was passed. Other hon members have already referred to this problem. However, I wish to point out immediately that I myself and all other hon members on this side of the House are ardent supporters of the free market mechanism and the free market system. However, what we must never forget, is that the free market system is a principle, a theory. In fact, there is a vast difference between the theory of the free market mechanism on the one hand, and its practical implementation on the other.

What do we have in South Africa? We have here an industrialized First World, as well as a Third World with its African culture. However, we have 70 000 farmers who have to try to feed 25 million people in this country. I believe that the 70 000 farmers in this country are performing a wonderful task, under tremendously difficult circumstances. Meanwhile, South Africa is one of the six countries in the world that exports food.

In this respect, I wish to quote what the hon member for Yeoville had to say about this in a recent debate in this House. He quite rightly stated that South Africa has a mixed economy. This is something we can never explain away. It amounts to an interaction between private and public initiative.

Today I would venture to say that if we had continued with the situation as it was before 1937, ie before the Marketing Act came into operation, we would undoubtedly have been in the same position as quite a number of countries around us today. In this regard I wish to quote from an article which appeared recently in The Star, in which the World Bank warns against the catastrophe of starvation, which is creeping up on Africa. Inter alia, the report reads as follows:

The report goes on to name the four countries, viz Mozambique, Ethiopia, Chad and Upper Volta. The World Bank then goes on to analyse the reason why these countries find themselves in a famine situation. They mention reasons such as drought and other problems, but ultimately, they say, it is really nothing but mismanagement. That is precisely what the Marketing Act of 1937 had in mind and what it is still trying to do today— to eliminate mismanagement. I regard the passing of the Marketing Act of 1937 with the inclusion of its amendments over the years as the most important contribution to order that has ever been brought about in South Africa’s history in providing food.

I found it very interesting that the hon member for Bezuidenhout quoted what the Minister of Agriculture had to say in 1937. I looked up what the Minister of Agriculture in 1962, Mr Dirk Uys, had to say when he made a very important speech on agricultural policy in the Senate. In column 4328 of the Senate Hansard of 1962 the Minister said the following, inter alia:

Today, 25 years later, the principle of marketing and order in the industry is precisely as he spelt it out, and I do not think one could put it better than the Minister put it at that time. Firstly, it was to establish price stability for the producer and the consumer; secondly, that every branch of agriculture should stand on his own feet; thirdly, that we should always produce with a view to favourable sales, viz that every control board should continually give attention to supply and demand. After all, that is the principle of the free market mechanism. Fourthly, Minister Uys said at that time that every farmer remains an independent and private entrepreneur. He must decide for himself what he wants to plant, he must decide for himself how many farms he wishes to purchase and he must decide for himself what he can afford to pay for them.

Today we have the slogan of the free market mechanism. What does it really mean? I think it means to strive for a high and stable growth-rate in the economy, which is determined by various factors such as, for example, consumption, investment, saving and increased productivity. Against that background, what, then is control? What does control do in the economy of our country? Control tries to establish self-sufficiency and the necessity for regular supply. It is as simple as that. Having said this—and I think it is important to say this—I want to add that control and orderly marketing is nothing but an extension of the free market mechanism. I cannot place enough emphasis on the fact that we should never see these two aspects as being opposed to one another, but that one is really an extension of the other. Various speakers pointed to how many factors influence the producer’s situation.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the fault with control can never be sought in the principle of control. I would not deny that problems could arise in its implementation, but how does one solve them? If one has a robot in the street regulating traffic, and that robot is out of order, one is not going to chop it down and throw it away. Surely one is not going to remove it; one is going to repair it so that it can work and be effective. If a control board does not work effectively, control must not be done away with, but the fault must be rectified so that that control can function better. That improved functioning must take place between certain poles. On the one hand, the producer has a price at which he can sell, and he has a price at which he can purchase his requirements on the other. The producer must act as productively and as effectively as possible within those two poles.

There is a final point. I said that I myself serve on a control board, viz the Wheat Board. I can think of no better example of effective control than the control by the Wheat Board. There are also few boards I know of in which there is such an excellent relationship between the board and the hon the Minister. It attests to cordial co-operation. There was a very good example at the end of last year. The Wheat Board realized that on the basis of supply and demand, although it had every reason to do so, it could not recommend an increase in the price of wheat. It then recommended to the Minister that the price be kept constant. I can think of no better example of where cognizance is even taken of the essential question of supply and demand in control in orderly marketing.

Mr Speaker, as a voter from Paarl, I take great pleasure in speaking after my own MP. I want to say that as a farmer in the Paarl district it is a pleasure for me to know that an expert on agriculture like the hon member represents me as a farmer in this House. I must say that I am speaking as a farmer, of course; I am not speaking on the basis of my political philosophy. We can speak about that at a later stage when he comes to try to canvass my vote. [Interjections.]

I listened very carefully to what the hon member for Paarl had to say about the control mechanism in agriculture as an extension of the free market mechanism which, of course, we in this country accept as the basis on which business is conducted. I must say that whilst I was listening, I gained the impression—I should like to see what the hon member’s reaction to that is—that there is perhaps a slight difference in attitude between him and the hon member Dr Odendaal, since the latter hon member almost gave this House the impression that there is a conflict between control and marketing and expansion in the agricultural industry and the free market mechanism. If I am not mistaken, he went as far as to say that the control and marketing of agriculture products is not quite at home in the free market mechanism. I gained the impression that he had problems with that, and perhaps he would avail himself of another opportunity at a later stage to elaborate a little further on his philosophy in this regard.

I want to refer very briefly to two aspects that are dealt with in the legislation. The first relates to the provision in clause 3 which provides that a control board has to furnish either the Minister or the Marketing Council with information if it is asked to do so. I think this is a very important addition to the Act. I can see that the Minister and the Marketing Council could experience problems from time to time in making important decisions with regard to a very complex industry if information is not made available immediately or in sufficient detail. If I consider the investigation undertaken into the slaughtering and meat industry, and the problems that arose in that regard, I see that one of the problems was that sufficient information could not be obtained concerning precisely what was going on in the meat industry. The former Minister of Agriculture will recall that the former hon member for Orange Grove spoke about the meat industry at least three or four times a year, and that from time to time he made serious allegations against organizations about the way in which this industry was being handled. However, one could never obtain sufficient information to determine precisely where the problems lay in the meat industry. I am not referring to dishonesty or anything of that nature, but to real problems. With this proposed amendment, in terms of which the Minister will be able to determine, for example precisely what goes on at auctions, who purchases what and at what price, what the daily slaughtering figures are, which meat purchased by the Meat Board at a certain price is sold to the industry at a later stage at a price that may be lower, many problems will be solved. If we are really going to try to introduce a balanced and planned purchasing and slaughtering programme into the industry, we will have to determine, for example, which times of the year slaughtering should increase, when people should work overtime, etc, in order to obtain a more balanced price for products than is the case at present. I think the hon the Minister would agree with me that if this could be done, it would not only be to the advantage of the consumer, but also to the advantage of the producer. The tremendous price fluctuations that take place each year in the meat industry are not really to anyone’s advantage. Last week some daily newspapers quite justifiably criticized the fact that in the few days preceding the holiday weekend, the price of meat predictably rose, but that slaughtering decreased because the slaughtering industry was not prepared to work on those public holidays. If this information is made available to the hon the Minister and the board, there could be better planning, something which would be to the advantage of the producer as such.

I also want to refer to the proposed new section 31B, in which it is provided that no person who is present at a meeting of a control board has the right to make information available to anyone other than a person determined by the hon the Minister. Could the hon the Minister tell us what would happen if the persons who were present do not comply with this provision? One has to be very careful of treating individuals who are members of control boards or who are present at meetings of such boards differently from, for example, someone who is present at an ordinary board meeting of a public or private company. Or must they be singled out and treated differently? I should think—unless the hon the Minister van convince me of the contrary—that someone who is untrustworthy in this respect could create a problem by making information available to others who could use it to their own advantage. One can imagine that if, for example, a price increase is proposed and that possibility is discussed at a meeting of a control board and the final decision lies with the hon the Minister—it is quite right that this should be the case—that information could be to the advantage of individuals or companies who want to exploit it. The same applies to information discussed at a board meeting of a public or private company—I do not mean that agriculture does not fall under private industry—and if it leaks out, it could similarly be to the benefit of someone who wants to use the information to his own advantage.

I should like the hon the Minister to reply to this and to explain why it is necessary specifically to single out such persons. Should they not be punished in the usual manner? If someone is untrustworthy in this respect, he should be dismissed, or if it is in fact done with the intention of benefiting someone else financially, he must be tried in a court and punished, just as he would be if he were to be found guilty of some crime or another.

Mr Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take the floor after the hon member for Wynberg has spoken, but I do just want to point out that in my view that problems in the meat industry arise as a result of the fact that only 50% of meat marketing is under the control of the farmers. I do not want to argue this aspect with the hon member—there is no time for that at the moment—but I do not fully want to agree with him about this either. I want to associate myself with other hon members what expressed approval of the content and principle of the Bill before the House. Particularly in the light of the continual attacks made on agricultural marketing by organized commerce and industry and some academics, it is encouraging that we have unanimity in the House today, at least for the moment, on the principle underlying the Marketing Act.

Although we now have this encouraging unanimity here, it is a pity that many consumers are given the wrong impression about the role of agriculture in the free-market economy. In this connection I specifically want to refer to pronouncements made by Assocom in its latest issue of Viewpoint, in which the standpoint is adopted that control boards tend to isolate consumers and producers from one another. It is a pity that consumers are given a wrong impression by a statement from Assocom, in its publication Viewpoint, that the consumer in South Africa finds himself in a take-it-or-leave-it situation. It is probably necessary for Assocom and those academics who make misleading statements about agriculture and about control boards to take note of the other side of the coin too. Both Assocom and Prof Botha of the University of the Witwatersrand have, in the latest issue of Reader’s Digest, adopted standpoints that we in this House, as representatives of agricultural areas, really cannot simply accept with folded hands. Assocom and this learned gentleman, Prof Botha, really do not contribute to greater understanding if they record, as their perception, that the approach adopted by the control boards conflicts with the principles of the free-market mechanism. In the course of time the various economic systems in the world’s developed countries have evolved by way of an evolutionary process. The hon member for Paarl referred to this a short while ago when he said that systems of this nature should develop by way of an evolutionary process. The nature of an economic system is surely not determined solely by economic factors. The economic processes in every society have the closest possible ties with, are an integral part of, the total social system and the circumstances prevailing in the relevant country.

It is also an interesting fact that a perfect freely competitive market is never encountered in practice. I do not want to burden hon members with a definition of what a perfect, freely competitive market is, but I do want to say that the requirements that have to to met in the creation of such a market do serve as a goal. The hon member for Paarl has also said as much. In itself that ideal is virtually not encountered anywhere, in those exact terms, although that ideal is universally pursued, it also being this Government’s policy to pursue it. It is according to those criteria that every economic system will have to be judged. Thus our economic system evolved to fit in with our individual circumstances, for example our climatic conditions, the composition of our population, our economic capability, our population distribution, etc. Our economic system therefore differs from that of other countries, even those having the same basic economic philosophy. Every country’s economic system is adapted to its unique needs, problems and circumstances. That is something that both Assocom and Prof Botha should bear in mind when they express opinions about the marketing system in South Africa. It is therefore a pity that they want to assess the Marketing Act and the philosophy behind it on the basis of the systems of other developed countries and compare the Marketing Act with the systems of those developed countries. The free-market theory is an absolute theory developed in the eighteenth century by Adam Smith when the European economic system was a simple one and it was un necessary to reconcile socio-economic objectives on the one hand with politico-strategic objectives on the other. Nor was it necessary to do so on the same scale as it is necessary for us to do today. Therefore it is no solution to want to absolutize Adam Smith’s free-market theory and advocate the marketing of agricultural products under such ideal conditions, which in any event did not exist anywhere at all. This cannot work because it is an over-simplification that completely ignores too many fundamental aspects. It is a pity that Assocom contrasts the principles of the free-market mechanism and the approach of control boards, as if conflicting perceptions were involved. It is a pity that they state that control boards isolate the consumers and producers from one another. What is not merely a pity or unfortunate, but in fact plain misrepresentation, however, is their statement that consumers in South Africa find themselves in a take-it-or-leave-it situation. That is plain misrepresentation. The Marketing Act, and thereby the marketing boards, not only protect the producers, but also the consumers and their interests. With price-determination, marketing boards take those aspects into account that the hon member for Prieska has high-lighted here.

I should like to come back to a point I made earlier, and that is that each country’s economic system is particular to its own unique circumstances. In the circumstances pertaining in South Africa there are many factors which complicate our economic system and which make it impossible to absolutize the free-market theory. I should like to highlight a few aspects that specifically endorse the fact that we have anything but perfect free competition in the non-agricultural sectors of our economy. If we look at the degree of concentration in the manufacturing industry, it is interesting to note that less than 3% of all undertakings handle 50% of the total turnover. It is also interesting to note that 6,3% of all undertakings employ 64% of all employees and that 6% of all undertakings own 85% of all fixed property.

When one looks at the market for agricultural products in South Africa, one sees that only a small section of the population participates in the market-orientated capitalistic system, whilst the major portion of the population are part of a subsistence economy and cannot participate in that system. The question is: What happens now to the theory of a perfect free-market system under conditions of this nature? I greatly appreciate the fact that the hon member for Yeoville is in the House at the moment, because I should like to point out that he also finds himself in the ranks of the critics of agricultural marketing. According to The Argus of 4 May 1982 he said:

Since the hon member, in this connection, finds himself in the company of Assocom and Prof Botha, I assume that this is so, not out of conviction, but as a result of political considerations.

I concede that control boards do actually restrict a perfectly free market, but in our specific circumstances control boards must be seen as part of the system within which one pursues free-market theory. It has never been the intention of control boards to isolate agricultural products from the long-term effects of supply and demand.

The unique position of agriculture, which has previously been singled out, must be borne in mind. As one of the largest employers in the economy, with 4,5 million people living on farms on a full-time basis, agriculture has a distinct kind of individuality. For approximately one third of the total gross value of South Africa’s industrial production, industries are dependent on agriculture for either their inputs or their sales, and the rural economy is virtually completely dependent on it. In other words, agriculture’s position is a unique one, and that is why the hon member, Assocom and Prof Botha should bear in mind that our economic system also has socio-economic and politically strategic objectives.

It is interesting, however, that Assocom, which itself lives in a glass house, finds itself throwing stones at the agricultural industry. It is not only in agriculture that there is control, and when discussing control, one should at least look at the other side of the fence. Less publicized forms of control are specifically responsible for the extraordinary increase in input costs in agriculture. The majority of our most important inputs are purchased by farmers on the domestic front at prices considerably higher than those of their foreign competitors, and I just want to give a few examples.

Local manufacturers of fertilisers, particularly nitrogen, were until quite recently protected by import control, which resulted in South African farmers having had to pay quite a bit more than their foreign competitors. What is interesting is that at the present moment there are behind-the-scenes negotiations between fertiliser companies to form a certel, and everyone knows that the effect of cartel formation on the agricultural industry would be. So is there any question of a perfect free-market economy?

Local manufacturers of chemical and veterinary preparations are protected by strict registration requirements. The Israeli producers of Jaffa oranges can, for example, purchase their cropspraying preparations at prices considerably lower than those the producers of Outspan oranges have to pay. The producers of Outspan oranges nevertheless have to compete with the Israeli producers on the international market.

The manufacture of livestock fodder in South Africa is controlled by a small handful of large conglomerates that derived much of their power from, and still enjoy the benefits of, statutory protective and incentive measures. In theory the South African farmer purchases his diesel at a discount. In real terms North American wheat is produced with the aid of diesel fuel that costs more or less half of what the South African farmer has to pay for it. It is also interesting to note that the South African farmer has to compete, on the international market, with producers of this North American wheat that chiefly determine’s the international price.

Labour levies are collected by Administration Boards; these are levies not spent on agriculture. Industrialists in border areas are given encouragement by way of a whole series of incentives, concessions and subsidies for which new farmers and farmers creating job opportunities do not qualify. And these same industrialists use those subsidies to entice agricultural labour into their own industries. I am referring to these examples, Mr Speaker, merely to indicate that there are also control measures outside agriculture. I want to reconfirm that in South Africa’s unique circumstances these control measures are both necessary and important. It appears to me, however, as if we are dealing here with a situation of the pot calling the kettle black, even though both are equally black.

Statutory control measures for the protection of commerce and industry are not taken into account when critics express opinions about restrictions on a completely free market, particularly not when agriculture is involved. Surpluses in the egg trade in 1982 were caused by feed producers who went into competition with their own clients after having increased the price of their products considerably, with the profit margin thereby having been reduced.

Surpluses of dairy products—reference has previously been made to this—were caused by people outside the dairy industry, people outside the agricultural industry. The idea that control boards keep prices artificially high is simply not correct. In contrast with the popular view, the products of the majority of our 70 000 farmers are sold at market-related prices. The administration costs of control boards are frequently subjected to criticism. I do not want to burden hon members by going into too much detail. Suffice it to point out, however, that the administration costs of boards controlling animal products constitute 0,6% of the gross value of the products they control, whilst the costs of grain control boards amount to approximately 0,5% of the gross value of the products they control.

In the past I myself have criticized certain aspects and certain consequences of the administered price policy and the cost-plus basis for price-fixing. I said that in the case of maize and wheat this policy did not embody a built-in incentive factor to spur the inefficient farmer on towards greater efficiency. I still adhere to this opinion of mine to this day. It is, in fact, a very real shortcoming. There are other shortcomings too. Farmers have never contended, however, that the control board system is perfect. Assocom and similar organizations, including academics such as Prof Botha of the University of the Witwatersrand, who mentions the overdevelopment of co-operatives which, with statutory concessions, have an excessive hold on the farmer, merely contribute towards formulating a simplistic view of the philosophy underlying the Marketing Act, whilst they criticize the so-called “we and they attitude”, which they themselves actually helped to create. As a result of conditions within the country, our unique circumstances, which have developed through a process of evolution, it is necessary for us to pursue the free-market principle. Within that framework, however, there must be control measures, both on the part of agriculture and on the part of commerce and industry, and the reasons for this are politico-strategic and socio-economic in nature. In spite of control, agriculture is continually faced by increasingly constricting price relations, with farmers increasingly having to seek salvation in greater efficiency and greater yields.

Marketing legislation gives rise to overall stability in both the production and marketing spheres, and also in regard to the processing and disposal of agricultural products. That is, after all, in the national interest. This interference specifically grew out of the instability created in the past by uncontrolled free-market conditions. The amending Bill we are dealing with at present—as other hon members have also rightly remarked—is part of an evolutionary process. I therefore have great pleasure in supporting this measure.

Mr Speaker, I want to begin by thanking hon members for their very informative speeches concerning a very complicated piece of legislation which has been developed over a number of years. This legislation is almost 50 years old and there are certain principles in the legislation which have been investigated, amended and modified during the course of this period. We have now come to the stage where some of those principles have become permanently entrenched. It is not possible, therefore, to argue against the existing principles which have been entrenched over such a long period.

There are certain sensitive areas in connection with the Marketing Act which one will have to take into consideration from time to time. One of those sensitive areas is specifically the matter which was raised by the hon member for Caledon a short while ago, namely the question of the relationship between the producer and the consumer. This is where marketing begins and ends. Over the years, measures have always been taken to deal with this situation properly. There are certain methods on the basis of which we can test the Marketing Act with regard to its effectiveness in bringing the production and consumer sectors as close together as possible. We have the system of the so-called food basket and the percentage represented by producer prices in that food basket. Our country compares very well with other countries which have a market-orientated system like the USA. As far as certain of our products are concerned, the percentage is 40% and in other cases it is 50%. The higher the farm value in that food basket, the closer one gets to the position of the consumer. If one uses this as a criterion, we have to say that our control system in South Africa has made excellent progress in this connection.

One of the aspects that were very thoroughly investigated by the commission was the involvement of the consumer in the whole control system. The commission considered all kinds of evidence in this connection, and the evidence we heard from control boards which had had experience of the contribution made by consumers through the years—as you know, there is one consumer on every control board—was overwhelmingly to the effect that the contribution made by the consumer in respect of specialized marketing aspects of a particular product was not very valuable. The commission made certain recommendations concerning the removal of the consumers from the control boards, but that would have caused an explosion in South Africa. This matter was politically more sensitive than it would otherwise have been in respect of the contribution, and the recommendation of the commission was that a statutory obligation should be imposed on the National Marketing Council to liaise with the recognized consumer organizations on a regular basis, two or three times a year, so that the consumers could make an input in respect of a whole series of products in which they had an interest. As a result of political pressure which we experienced at the time, however, the Minister at that time was unable to accept it.

I want to make the statement at once that if it is true that the consumer is beginning to be alienated from the whole control system, as the hon member alleges, because the consumer has been pushed aside, as it were, then this is certainly not the intention of the Marketing Act, and we are investigating certain aspects at the moment in an attempt to improve this situation.