Mr Speaker, I thank you for affording me the opportunity of making a statement on a matter which the Government considers of national importance. At this moment this statement is also being read on my behalf in the other two Houses.

The Government is not opposed to a debate on racism and religious persecution in South Africa, but I do not think that there should be any doubt among us about our attitude to this important issue. In fact, there are hon members in this House who will recall that this matter was also discussed here almost five years ago. On that occasion, 15 April 1982, I said, inter alia, and I quote from Hansard:

That is what I said in my speech here in this House on that occasion. I believe that all three Chambers of this Parliament will agree with me that the greatest danger to an orderly, stable South Africa lies in sweeping up racial and religious feelings against each other, whether it be Afrikaner against English-speaker, White against Black, Xhosa against Zulu, Christian against Jew, or no matter who. Many of our ancestors came to this country purely because they wanted the right to believe in their God in their own way and to pray and worship freely.

We cannot be unfaithful to the right that our ancestors demanded for themselves. Therefore I have decided to put the South African Government’s point of view unequivocally in Parliament today to prevent there being any doubts about it in the public mind.

†The South African Government stands irrevocably for religious freedom and the protection of communities and minorities. We believe irrevocably in the dignity of man as a creation of God. We recognise the diversity of God’s creation and believe we can live together in this diversity and tolerate each other in a way that will be to the glory of God. We believe that in this diversity we can complement one another and work together to ensure the progress of all communities. We respect individuality and accept participation in matters of common concern, but we reject racial superiority and religious coercion.

As long as this Government is in power, there will be no hesitation in acting against any elements which threaten or defame any of our communities or minority groups. Against this background I want to tell the Jewish community of South Africa that we appreciate their contribution to the economic, cultural and technological achievements of our father-land. Any organisation which wants to start an anti-Jewish campaign will be acting in conflict with the law and convictions of this country, and I and the Government will not hesitate to oppose such actions. I reject National Socialism and its dictatorial system in the strongest possible terms.

Hear, hear!

The South African Government will not hesitate to act against any individual or organisation which threatens or besmirches any community or minority group in this country.

For this purpose, existing measures will be strictly applied. If these do not prove adequate, additional measures will be submitted to Parliament for approval.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, the SABC is seldom out of the firing line. It is everybody’s villain, and we who are opposition politicians castigate it for the monster we perceive it to be. This is not done, however, without reason or without justification. In this debate the SABC has already been attacked by representatives of all the opposition parties in this House. The corporation also enjoys scant respect from hon members of the other two Houses of Parliament.

Outside Parliament, the perception of the SABC is even worse. So slavishly has it followed the NP line, no matter how patently ridiculous, that it has lost credibility to the extent that its most serious statements are often publicly mocked. The fact that a statement is quoted by the SABC is in itself enough to cast doubts upon its truthfulness, certainly insofar as everyone who is not a Nationalist is concerned. Even in its own annual report, the SABC admits to committing itself to supporting Government policies and Government initiatives.

I have said enough, however. I do not wish to belabour this point. There is ample proof, but there are none so blind as those who will not see. Doubtless, no matter what I say, the hon the Minister will refute my argument and pretend that it is of no substance; let him do that.

We cannot, however, ignore the fact that in 1986, television licences were increased by 30%to R60 and that this year, television licences went up a further 20%to R72. During the same period, the SABC operated at a loss of over R56 million, and looks like losing money at the same rate this year. Furthermore, we must understand that there is no point in comparing our licence fees with those levied by other corporations abroad. South Africans do not live abroad; they live here. [Interjections.]

Yet what do we see? In the past three years, over R20 million has been lost at the rate of R8 million per year in uncollected licence fees—R8,4 million in 1986 alone—and yet, despite this ongoing problem and the losses being suffered, the SABC has announced no feasible plans to remedy this enormous and continuing loss.

Secondly, going from the sublime to the ridiculous, so much money is lashed out annually on the extravagant and ostentatious annual report, complete with self-aggrandising photographs and illustrations, that its distribution in the past has had to be limited to some members of Parliament only, while the majority have not received this document and have not had access to the information contained therein.

Allow me to mention some statistics about this report. The photographic tally is as follows. The Director-General, Mr Eksteen, appears in seven different photographs; the Chairman, Mr Brand Fourie, appears in five; the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs appears twice in pin-up poses; and the hon the State President—I believe this is his statutory right is given one photographic slot. One thing is for certain; the management of the SABC certainly love themselves!

Finally, the SABC, while pleading its poverty and stressing its attempts to cut down on expenditure, blames its losses on the adverse economic climate, low consumer spending, and the inflation rate. Let us be realistic. Many corporations which do not have the advantage of the monopolistic conditions enjoyed by the SABC experience exactly the same market conditions in their businesses, and yet they manage to operate and, in the end, most of them make profits.

A company called Times Media Ltd, which used to be called SAAN, lost only approximately R20 million over a two-year period, and what was the result? The managing director was fired, the board restructured, and an entirely new corporate strategy adopted. Pursuant to that, I believe that the company will survive and perhaps even prosper, but it would not have done so without the drastic steps which were taken.

How much more money must be thrown away by the SABC before notice is taken of its affairs? It must be realized that we are talking about public money and not private money. Is the management of the SABC untouchable? Is it a teflon-coated management, no matter what blunders are perpetrated and no matter how bad its financial control?

Let us look at the management and the board of directors of the SABC. Allow me to start with the board. The board sets policy, meets several times a year and makes crucial decisions which guide the corporation for the months ahead. It is appointed entirely by the hon the State President and the Government of this country.

The chairman of the board is a diplomat who is inexperienced in the business world and specially appointed through the good offices of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In 1986 one of the members of the board was a politician,—naturally a Nationalist. The board seated one singer, one beautician, one NP President’s Councillor, a couple of tame Coloured and Black academicians … [Interjections.] … one dominee, one Indian acamedic turned ambassador and only one person, Mr Chick Henderson, who had any knowledge whatsoever of broadcasting. Naturally, his services have recently been dispensed with by the hon the Minister. As soon as Prof Sampie Terblanche, a long-serving member who had at least grown into the job and learnt something over the many years that he had served there, voiced criticism of the Government, he was dismissed from the board. He was fired!

This board is out of touch with the public it is supposed to serve; it is unable to grapple with the business and economic realities of today; and it is being led by the nose by professional NP supporters who are the management team and who themselves are happy to retain the benefits and privileges which go with their support of the Government, regardless of the financial well-being of the corporation.

This is a board and a management grown fat and incompetent through lack of competition. This is a board and a management safe in their jobs only as long as they support that Government. This is a board and a management who in two years have dissipated over R50 million of cash belonging to the public.

I say it is time to change. Firstly, the local radio stations across the country should be operated by private enterprise, reflecting the interests of the local communities concerned. The first priority, therefore, should be to turn the SABC regional operations over to the communities and enterprises which those local operations serve. What is left of the SABC after this has been done will be the national radio and television network.

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

No, Sir. I do not have the time.

It is my view that the national radio and television network should be handed back to the people of South Africa. That is what should happen to them.

How, hon members may ask, can this be done? I believe that the answer lies in making every South African who operates a television set a shareholder in the SABC. The payment of his licence fee should also entitle him to one share in the corporation. Every television set should require an individual licence and each time the licence fee is paid, one share should be granted to the payer of that licence fee. The Board of Governors should come up for election every three years and the election could take place by using a voting form printed on the back of the renewal form of the licence.

If the above two concepts are accepted or even considered, several benefits will flow. Firstly, radio will be operated for the first time on a really competitive basis, and certainly on a far more profitable basis than it is run at present. Secondly, it will also reflect local community content in a far more meaningful manner than at present. Furthermore, the television services will finally belong not to one interest group, but to the people as a whole. This will mean that the people who pay their licence fees will in fact have the final say as to the Board of Governors. Finally, in this manner the SABC will be placed in a position where it will be responsible to the people and to the whole community, and not just to a partisan Government.

Perhaps then we will have a service which is economically viable and a service which reflects the reality of South Africa—a service of which we can be proud.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry but the hon member for Sandton will have to wait at the back of the queue for a reply to his speech.

I want to thank hon members once again for their contributions to the debate on Votes 4 and 5 on the Commission for Administration. I also want to convey my special thanks to the respective Whips on all sides of the House, as well as to my officials who supported me.

I should like to congratulate the main speakers of the respective parties on their appointments and express the hope that their contributions to debates of this nature will also be of a high quality in future. I must add though, with my tongue in my cheek when I thank everyone for the exceptionally constructive debate on the Commission for Administration, that I did have a slight suspicion that we were all wooing the officials’ vote. [Interjections.]

Before I reply to each member individually, I should like to point out that the Commission for Administration, and I as the Minister, are not responsible for the day-to-day administration of the pension funds. Hon members who want to raise matters in that connection should rather do it during the discussion of the Vote of my colleague, the hon the Minister of Health and Population Development. I did take cognisance of what hon members said in this connection, though, and the Commission for Administration will give attention to these matters, to the extent to which it is involved.

Furthermore I want to recommend an excellent publication to hon members. It is entitled Skatkispersoneel/Exchequer Personnel. It will enable hon members to get to know far more about the Commission for Administration.

I come now to the various speakers. In the first place I want to come to the hon member for Losberg and say that he displayed the courtesy of coming to wish me well before my Vote discussion. I hope he did not think he was coming to say farewell to me.

As regards the first point he raised, that the distinction between state and government should not be lost, and the second point that the Government should not annex public servants for its purpose and expect them to defend aspects of policy on television, for example, I am in full agreement that the Public Service must serve all sectors impartially. However, it is not all that simple to draw an absolute distinction between policy aspects and technical aspects. As experts, officials will always be involved in discussions on many matters of public importance.

His next request was that the commission should play a more prominent role as the watchdog over structural changes. The commission is in fact doing that. Together with its office, the commission makes a major contribution to combining change with administrative efficiency.

He also discussed the 12,5%salary adjustment. It goes without saying that we cannot apply indexing in this country. It would be fatal. It is a fact that the officials of this country make a major sacrifice by accepting salary increases which are below the inflation rate. However, I want to say that I held talks with all the associations for officials, and all these associations were addressed by myself, as well as by the commission. As far as this year is concerned, they displayed great appreciation for the fact that circumstances are difficult and that they would have to wait for better days. But the heart of the matter is still that the commission insists that a measure of moderate competitiveness must be applied. In future we will persist with this policy to the best of our ability.

The hon member for Springs raised a matter which is of deep concern to the Government and the commission, ie the effect of the cessation, reduction or alienation of State activities on affected personnel, particularly as far as their job security and circumstances of life are concerned. As I mentioned in my introductory speech, the Government approved a personnel strategy having as its basis the view that all such situations should be dealt with in such a way that the dismissal of personnel is avoided wherever possible. Time does not allow me to deal with the strategy in detail. What is important, however, is that every' situation will be directed by a personnel plan, with fairness and reasonableness as cornerstones. The personnel will also be consulted throughout, and where they can possibly exercise a choice, they will also be at liberty to consult their staff associations. I am pleased the hon member drew attention once more to the fact that the Public Service is not a massive regulating mechanism, but is primarily development oriented and also affords a considerable percentage of protection.

†That brings me to the hon member for Pinetown. I want to thank the hon member for supporting the function accounting programme. The hon member raised a number of points which I shall deal with briefly.

At the outset, however, I wish to associate myself with the points raised by the hon member for Umhlanga. It is a historical fact that the Public Service was staffed predominantly by Whites in its earlier years. In recent years, however, more people of colour have become qualified, especially in fields like medicine, education and social services. Accordingly, an increased number of those people have been appointed in more senior posts. During 1985 a new employment policy for the Public Service was approved by the Cabinet, and my predecessor informed Parliament of this policy in detail at that time. In short, the new policy provides for the unrestricted appointment of any person, irrespective of colour, to any position in the Public Service, including that of Director-General. The only prerequisites laid down are merit, efficiency and the particular requirements for the post concerned.

In respect of own affairs departments, however, preference will be given to a person of that group if all other qualifications are equal. Thus a chief executive director already exists in the Administration: House of Representatives and the Administration: House of Delegates. This post is the second most senior post in the Public Service. The Government is not prepared, however, to appoint people to senior positions in the Public Service for purely cosmetic purposes. If persons of colour prove their ability they will be considered for appointment in senior posts.

It is furthermore the policy to advertise vacancies, including promotional posts, in the Public Service. Any person who has obtained the prescribed qualifications can apply for such a post and his application will be considered on equal grounds with those of all other applicants, always taking into account the dictates of merit and efficiency.

With regard to wages paid to Black labourer groups the Government is well aware of the position of labourers of all population groups. The improvement of their wages has enjoyed high priority during recent years. Over the past 3½ years the minimum notch of the lowest salary range for labourers has been increased by 163%. During the 1985-86 financial year 90%of the funds allocated to the improvement of occupational dispensations were set on the lower wage levels, for example labourers, nurses and lowly paid teachers. For the 1986-87 financial year almost 70%of these funds were allocated to these groups. The Government has to take cognisance of the economic realities of the day. As in the case of the other occupational groups, the policy of moderately market-related wages must be applied and in the case of labourers the local wage levels must also be taken into account. Job creation is also an important priority in the sense that the higher the wages the fewer people can be employed.

*I come now to the hon member for Sunnyside, who pledged strong support for the privatisation initiatives of the Government. He was correct in relating these activities to deregulation, the promotion of competition and steps to curb Government spending. I am in full agreement with him that privatisation activities require good relations between the public and private sectors, and also that thorough regard be had to the RSA’s unique circumstances. He is correct in his view that no other country’s approach and models can be blindly imitated. He is also correct when he says that in our special set of circumstances the interests of the private sector must be weighed up against the responsibility of the State to see to the fundamental needs of the country and its people.

The hon member for Innesdal paid tribute to the major role played by the officials in the development processes and also made an appeal to the effect that officials who are likely to be affected by substantial changes should be informed in good time. I share that view. I have taken cognisance of the hon member’s proposals in regard to additional statistics in the annual report.

The hon member for Stellenbosch made a sterling contribution on deregulation. Although he told us about the good results obtained with deregulation in the USA, he issued a timely warning that deregulation could lead to a greater concentration of economic power if it was not managed correctly. At any rate that was one of the consequences of deregulation in the USA. He was also correct in pointing out that in a developing country in particular a measure of deregulation is necessary. I want to agree wholeheartedly with the hon member that the Third World component of our population must share in the economy. I have appreciation for his view that our standards are frequently unrealistically high and that a new approach to backward areas is necessary. I thank him for his positive contribution.

†I come now to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis. He voiced his concern over various aspects of privatisation. As I have already indicated in my responses to contributions of other hon members I wish to assure him and the House that all proposed privatisation and deregulation actions will receive very careful consideration, and that decisions will be taken with the utmost circumspection. I have noted the hon member’s suggestion that should privatisation of an activity be decided upon there should be no lessening of standards and that shareholding should be as broadly distributed as possible. I fully agree with him on that.

I want now to reply to the hon member for Pinelands. In general I wish to respond by assuring the House that the Government will not privatise functions and activities in a haphazard fashion. Every privatisation proposal will be carefully considered and all possible implications will be taken into account. It is most likely that in all these processes we will employ professional people who know what they are doing. The hon member expressed some doubt as to the degree of serious commitment on the Government’s part concerning the privatisation programme. I want to respond by stating emphatically that the Government stands by its recently published White Paper.

The hon member for Durban North said that so many people are employed in the Public Service that it is not possible to pay all of them properly. He said there should be a reduction in numbers. I want to refer him to the information brochure which has now been issued by the commission. After he has studied it I would like him to tell me where exactly he wants the Public Service to cut back. He should also bear in mind that we have programmes of privatisation and function accounting that are designed to trim the Public Service without decreasing its effectiveness.

He also referred to a lack of proper negotiation with teachers. I am surprised that he does not realise that within the legislative framework administered by my colleague, the hon the Minister of National Education, a comprehensive structure for consultation exists. In the relevant bodies—all the sectors of the teaching profession like universities, technikons, colleges and schools—all population groups are represented. Then the hon member referred to other groups, such as the medical profession, where dispensations are not adequate to attract and retain sufficient staff. My reply is that the commission annually carries out a programme of occupational specific maintenance investigations. The medical groups are at present receiving attention, as are other groups where problems are being experienced. These programmes are executed within the limits of financial constraints. He also referred to the improvement of human relations, particularly among race groups. I agree wholeheartedly. The way in which this is achieved is through training courses for staff at all levels.

*Mr Chairman, I come next to the hon member for Roodepoort, who said that the Government’s policy was that the dispensations for public service personnel should be reasonably competitive compared with the open labour market. To ensure competitiveness it is necessary to keep on making market surveys. This is being done with the help of data from two recognised private sector consultants with large data bases. In addition use is made of data from the HSRC, analyses of media advertisements, information acquired from other major employers, etc. When market comparisons are made, not only are the salaries compared, but also other elements such as bonuses, pension benefits, medical aid, motor vehicle benefits, housing assistance, leave benefits and office hours. In all cases we try to make complete package comparisons. Because there is a larger measure of job security in the Public Service, this is also taken into account in determining the dispensations. This is done by scaling down remuneration by between 5%on the lower levels and 15%on the higher levels in all cases where it is applicable.

He then put a question about the amount of R128 million under the heading “Other”. The position in regard to this amount under the heading “Other”, under augmentation of subsidies, grants and financial assistance to state-aided institutions, is the following. It represents the estimated costs of the improved conditions of service of that personnel in the employ of various state-aided institutions, which include universities, technikons and scientific councils.

He also put a question in regard to overtime payments. As far as the payment of overtime is concerned, the position is that it is in fact still being paid when circumstances make it necessary. In essence each department itself decides when overtime and overtime payment is necessary.

The hon member also asked a question in regard to the former development board personnel. The position in this connection is briefly as follows. The vast majority of these staff members have already been effectively re-employed on a full-time basis. According to report, however, there are in fact staff members who have not been effectively incorporated, but this is receiving attention from the respective provincial Administrators. As far as conditions of service are concerned, specific essential conditions of service, for example salaries, pensions and retirement age, have been entrenched by the abolition legislation. These benefits have not been attenuated in any way. The retention, adjustment or phasing out of other conditions of service has taken place to the satisfaction of all trade unions. As regard to the 12,5%general adjustment, I give the hon member the assurance that all former administration board personnel did in fact qualify for that adjustment with effect from 1 July 1987, provided they were still in service. As far as I am concerned, this is my reaction to all the hon members who asked questions. I have replied to them to the best of my ability.

†Mr Chairman, allow me to make one further statement before I conclude this first part of my reply to the debate. Regarding the elimination of disparities in salaries and in conditions of service in relation to the various race groups the final stages of elimination have been reached. Hon members will recall that in 1979 the then Prime Minister announced that a programme for the elimination of the disparity in salaries had been accepted. I had the honour at the time to launch the programme and I am still very interested in this whole scheme. It was announced then that this would be done in stages simultaneously with any general salary adjustments. This was done until 1982. Even the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made a great contribution in this respect when he was the responsible Minister.

For very good reasons the removal of disparities in the lower income groups could be more practically dealt with when specific occupational dispensations were reviewed. This process is still under consideration. We now find ourselves, in the second half of 1987, in a position where the final residual elements of disparity need to be eliminated. In June this year the matter was considered by the Cabinet and a decision was postponed pending further investigation by the hon the Minister of Finance in relation to the availability of the necessary funds. An extra R135 million a year will be required. We are still negotiating with the hon the Minister of Finance and have also impressed upon him the urgent necessity and the very high priority of this matter. I am sure he will do his utmost to meet our requirements.

Then, Mr Chairman, I also want to state emphatically that if the worst does happen I will try my utmost to obtain a commitment to have the last vestiges of discriminatory salaries and conditions of service removed in the next financial year. That then concludes my reply as far as the Commission for Administration is concerned, Mr Chairman.

*Now we come to stormier waters again. In the first place I want to talk to the hon member for Umhlanga. I agree with him when he says there is a disparity between licensing revenue and advertising revenue, and that it must be eliminated. Our licences are too cheap, and will have to become more expensive in future. There is no doubt about that. I agree that financial discipline must be maintained.

As far as sparsely populated regions are concerned, we shall try to help as much as we can. Hon members must nevertheless remember that 20%of the transmitters reach 80%of the population. One television transmitter costs approximately R1 million to erect, and subsequently it costs R300 000 per annum to operate. Particularly in view of our present financial situation it is therefore very clear that one cannot expand these unprofitable services in an undisciplined way. However, we shall always do our best to accommodate these people as far as possible. He then asked whether there were not too many advertisements. In this regard I just want to say that the SABC has an allowable percentage of advertising time of 8%, and we are far below that percentage.

Then there is the question of the R18 000 paid out to a certain woman for alleged breach of contract. I cannot defend it, and I told the corporation to ensure that their contracts are rewritten to prevent this type of thing happening again in future.

I come now to the hon member for Losberg. In the first place he asked for the SABC to be made subject to the Media Council. My answer is no, and I shall give him my reasons for that later.

Will you give them to us in the course of this debate?

Yes, I shall give the hon member his full money’s worth.

*In the first place I say no because the SABC has quite a number of effective watchdogs. The first is the Parliament itself, with critical hon members here to question everything, and then there is a control board which has the specific task of keeping an eye on all these aspects.

The SABC also falls under the Publications Control Board, and I can give hon members the assurance that the SABC’s own standards are even stricter than those of the Publications Control Board. If hon members do not want to believe me, they should go to see the film Blue Velvet. [Interjections.]

Finally, although it is not a member of the Media Council, the Media Council nevertheless investigates all complaints against the SABC which are submitted to it.

The SABC is subject to conditions in its broadcasting licence, and this subjects it to an extremely strict code, one which is even stricter than that of the Media Council. Unfortunately I cannot motivate this; I do not have the time.

Unfortunately, too, I cannot support the hon member’s representations for an ombudsman. Except for the fact that we have an advocate general in the public service setup, they have never seen their way clear to appointing an ombudsman.

If the hon member would support me if I introduced a statutory amendment to enlarge the board of the SABC to approximately 100 members so that every group that asks for two representatives on it, can have them, one could consider giving that party and other parties special representation on the board. The fact of the matter is that, to the best of my ability, I appointed a non-political board—I do not even know what their politics are—and they operate on a non-political basis.

That is a joke. [Interjections.]

Furthermore I want to point out—I want to rub this in—that an opinion poll by an independent team of researchers in October-November 1986 among a representative sample group of Whites and Coloureds, indicated that a large majority of people from these groups had no grievances about the credibility of the SABC as a news medium.

Respondents were asked to indicate, on a scale from 1 to 10, how much credibility they thought radio, television, newspapers and periodicals had. Television was considered to be the most credible news medium. Altogether 58%of the Whites and Coloureds considered television news to be completely credible, compared with only 5%who thought it was completely non-credible. Radio ran a close second to television. Altogether 5%of the same groups considered radio news to be completely credible, compared with approximately 7%who considered it to be completely non-credible. Newspapers took third place. Thirty seven percent of the respondent group did not accept news in newspapers as being completely credible. Approximately 27%considered periodicals to be completely credible.

Do you not think that all that does is to illustrate how your propaganda has succeeded?

My time is limited. [Interjections.] The hon member and I can cross swords some other time.

I also want to tell the hon member for Losberg that if he wants to discuss films with me, I think he will be talking to a greater authority than he is. That may sound incredible, but it is true. For the rest he is very clever. The theme of The Imposteris a love affair between a White ex-convict and a White schoolmistress. In addition the exconvict tracks down a gang of drug peddlers and brings them to justice. It is a mixed school, but no love affairs or integration between White and Black occur at all.

In this connection I just want to say that owing to the Equity ban there are numerous good films from Britain that we cannot obtain. To a great extent we have to rely on the American market and it is inevitable that we will sometimes acquire films of an excellent standard in which there is a mixed component.

There is nothing wrong with that. That is a good thing.

I now want to say something about the television interview of the CP’s great guru, Daan van der Merwe, on partition just before the election. It is still doing them a great deal of harm. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that Mr van Coller is an exceptionally sophisticated man. He never treated Mr Daan van der Merwe discourteously, but simply kept on asking him whether they were going to relocate the remaining Blacks, and Mr van der Merwe never wanted to reply to the question. [Interjections.] But he did not treat Mr van der Merwe discourteously. [Interjections.]

Order!

As far as my own conduct was concerned, I agree with the hon member for Lichtenburg that it was very clumsy. After all what the hon member for Houghton said in the newspapers, namely that I am a has-been, is true. However she was born in the same year as I was. [Interjections.]

Not a nice thing to say about a lady!

However I was skillful enough to quote statistics which were damning, and I shall use them to castigate that party again. I just want to say that at least it helped to provide Sunnyside with a far better member of Parliament. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

No, Sir, I do not have the time.

I have not finished with the hon member for Losberg yet. He is the one who preached vociferously against Americanisation. Now he is asking us to introduce the fairness principle. He does not want Americanisation, yet he wants to introduce an obsolete system from America. [Interjections.] I am quoting to him from Newsweekof 17 August 1987:

But it was not a Supreme Court decision!

I come now to the hon member for Springs who, as usual, made a very good contribution. Violence on television is a matter to which constant attention is being given in most countries, particularly the Western countries, since the possible influence thereof on the viewer, particularly the child, is a source of concern. I think we all agree with this. I mentioned appreciable cuts that were being made. Films are being dealt with in a far more effective way. Cuts can be made without affecting the story. We are following that route, and we ask hon members for their support and assistance in this connection. [Interjections.]

Order!

I come now to the hon member for Sunnyside. He also touched upon the very important point that it should not only be the SABC that treats violence with circumspection, but that the same should also apply to M-Net, Bop-TV as well as the video industry. I just want to say that because we fall under this restriction we shall keep a very close watch, as far as this is concerned, on M-Net, the video industry and Bop-TV as well.

I want to thank the hon member Dr Golden for what he said in connection with external radio services. This is a very important matter, of which he has had personal experience. I can give him the assurance that I shall convey his sentiments to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, because he is the person who has to carry the burden in respect of the activities of these foreign radio services.

†I come now to the hon member for Johannesburg North. He is not satisfied with the liberal exposure given to the Van Eck and Van Rensburg defections. I am quite sure that if the hon leader of that party had asked for it, ample time would have been given to him to respond. As a matter of fact, SABC-TV was very liberal in giving him ample time during the election. I am nonetheless satisfied that the PFP were and are treated fairly. They ought to follow the advice of their own Press and seek their solutions within their own ranks instead of making the SABC the scapegoat.

When we do, they ignore us. [Interjections.]

I come now to the hon member for Bloemfontein East. I thank him for the extremely constructive speech he made for the promotion of Afrikaans on radio and TV and also for the fact that he mentioned that they were promoting a high level of language usage. In its labours in the field of language, the SABC co-operates with various language and cultural organisations, and there is a very sound interrelationship in this connection. The SABC will also have representation on a very high level in the Werke-komitee of the SA Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns for a national language strategy. It is well known that Bloemfontein is one of the cities in the RSA which has acquired a special reputation as a major music centre. I pleaded with the SABC Board for their undoubted talents in this connection to receive greater recognition.

†I wish to thank the hon member for King William’s Town for a very constructive speech of appreciation. He referred to religious broadcasts. The position is that we make available 360 hours a month on radio and 30 hours per month on television for religious broadcasts—all free of charge. [Interjections.]

*I also want to thank the hon member for his survey of the community radio services.

I come now to the hon member for Randburg. It is a pity that he did not obey the rules of etiquette by apologising for his absence, but I have a bit of a bone to pick with him. He spoke in a sanctimonious manner here and asked me whether guidelines had been given to the board to serve as a filter in some respects. He wanted to know, if a person is appearing or performing, whether what he says or does is being filtered. I remember very well that the hon member said on TV at an early stage during the election campaign that he was not prepared to speak to the ANC in Harare but that he was prepared to speak to them in South Africa. If there had been a filter, this would not have gotten through, but it did. That is conclusive proof that there is no filter.

But is there no filter?

Does the hon member not understand Afrikaans? [Interjections.]

I want to go further, however. Very well, the hon member was once treated rather roughly by a good interviewer—nothing as bad as what happens overseas—and when the entire country felt a little sympathy for him he appeared on television a few times and said what he wanted to say, and nothing of what he said was filtered. I think he is the last one to say that he was prejudiced in any way during the election coverage.

I want to thank the hon member for Germiston District for his comprehensive and thorough speech on the news activities of the SABC.

I come now to the second-last speaker, the hon member for Brits. In the first place he asked what I meant when I referred to religions. He must pardon me, but I have never gone beyond the level of deacon, and I am therefore a complete layman. I actually meant that Dr Potgieter would also act in a co-ordinating way between the churches which at present have permission from the SABC to make radio and television broadcasts.

I am very hesitant to admonish a former clergyman, but I must say something about his remarks on tennis, and particularly on rugby. He said the SABC should not broadcast John McEnroe carrying on like a spoilt brat on the tennis court. [Interjections.]

He did not say that! [Interjections.]

He said that if there was dirty play on the rugby field during a direct broadcast it should not be shown. [Interjections.] The hon member must pardon me, because I am not hostile towards him, but I think that was nonsense. [Interjections.]

†I want to respond to the last speaker, the hon member for Sandton.

What about the question in connection with criticism of Christianity?

I beg your pardon, what did the hon member say?

No, he was simply thinking out loud.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

No, I do not have the time. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members are interrupting the hon the Minister too frequently.

Yes, I only have a few minutes left, Mr Chairman. There is one important question I have not replied to. I think it was the hon member for Johannesburg North who asked why the SABC had not broadcast anything about the function in honour of Hess which was held in Pretoria. This is a typical example of the no-win position that is often referred to. If the SABC had broadcast this event, it would have been attacked. The fact of the matter is that it ignored this event, and why was it necessary to broadcast anything further about it? In any case the hon member for Yeoville knows me well. He knows that I am tremendously anti-Nazi, anti-Fascist and anti-AWB. If he wanted television coverage of these events, I could easily have arranged it for him if only he had asked me to do so. [Interjections.]

And anti-Nationalist!

I just want to ask the hon member for Brakpan whether he considers national socialism to be nationalism. Quite possibly he does, when one sees who their partners are. [Interjections.]

†My answer to the hon member for Sandton is that the annual report is a review of activities. The SABC has no desire to publish its report in any particular fashion. If hon members of Parliament so wish, the report will not be in a glossy or colourful form. His details about the work of the board were outdated.

The question of the privatisation of local radio stations has been raised on several occasions. My standpoint on this matter has also been made clear, namely that such privatisation will be considered in due time, but in the light of the knowledge I have at this stage, I hold out little hope for these requests.

*I come finally to finances.

But what about the criticism of the sermon?

It is a great pity that the criticism was levelled at the sermon. It is customary for a broadcaster to send well-intentioned criticism to the minister concerned about his manner of presentation. The official in this particular instance exceeded his limits by commenting on the merits of the sermon, and he has been reprimanded.

I want to say a few words about finances. We have various options in this connection. We can shorten the programmes and diminish the quality. We would not like to do that. We must definitely increase our licence fees, and if all these things do not restore the SABC to profitability, the last drastic step will have to be taken, namely that we will have to appoint professional consultants from outside to investigate the entire structure of the SABC.

I conclude by saying that I shall discuss and investigate this matter intensively during the next few months, in consultation with the Board in question. [Interjections.]

Cannot we investigate it now?

I want to conclude with the following words. I totally reject the allegations that the SABC only promotes the NP. The NP’s policy is to act in an anti-revolutionary way, and I am in full agreement with that.

Votes agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I should like to make the first contribution to the discussion of this important agriculture Vote. Before starting with certain aspects relating to agriculture, I merely want to say a few words to Dr Agenbach, the Superintendent-General of this large department, in his absence. Over a period of many years he devoted his efforts and zeal to this department. He made very many important contributions in this department. I shall not forget him. I am glad to have been able to work with him. He came to me today and handed me a letter telling me, in his characteristic way, while the letter trembled in my hand, that he thought the time had come for him to call a halt. I want to thank him very sincerely for what he has done, over many years, in this department and in agriculture. If at any moment he were to look over his shoulder at those who are following in his footsteps, it would be in the knowledge that they were the children he has raised. They will go further, because he has taught them well. In his absence, during his illness, they did very well, and that bears testimony to his efforts. In the true Namaqualand tradition I want to tell him: “Mag die veld altyd vol botterblom wees, en waar hy ook al gaan, mag die duifdoring bo in die driedoring staan.” I wish him everything of the best on his future journey. [Interjections.]

In discussing agriculture, we find that at this stage it is not in the easiest of circumstances that agriculture finds itself at present; in fact, the problems of agriculture are, on the one hand, centred around efforts at dealing with a financial dilemma and, on the other, the establishment of a long-term strategy. I think that everyone involved in agriculture is engaged in this. In the respective points of departure there is a difference in emphasis, but ultimately there is one interest common to all, and that is to get agriculture back on its feet again.

Various investigations have been instituted by the Government. Let me refer briefly to the report of the State President’s Economic Advisory Council on the role of agriculture which found that South African agriculture played an important role in the national economy. It also found that agriculture was indispensable to economic development and, in particular, to social and constitutional stability and order.

As far as the evaluation of the financial position of agriculture is concerned, the Economic Advisory Council also recommended that special steps be taken to assist agriculture. The report went on to state that this assistance should be granted on an individual basis, chiefly in regard to losses suffered as a result of factors beyond the control of the agriculturist. It should also be done on merit, and should only be granted whilst it is necessary. A very important criterion for financial assistance is that it should establish a viable unit in order to stabilise agriculture. By way of this report, and also by way of the Jacobs Committee and the special restructuring committee and the Department of Agriculture, which processed the report, short-term and long-term aid programmes were established.

The short-term measures adopted to grant assistance were based on four norms. Firstly they had to be deserving farmers, from both the personal and the managerial point of view. When we look at someone in such a difficult position, that is an important criterion. Secondly the security granted by the State should be based on the agricultural value and the economic value of the relevant unit, ie determining the ability of that unit to cover the loan so as to ascertain how much assistance can be granted to such a unit.

The investigation also dealt with a case in which the debt burden had become greater than the ability of the unit to cover the debt, and with working out a meaningful and realistic settlement which would be fair to the creditors. This aid plan, which was announced as an adjunct to the normal agricultural credit aid campaigns, was chiefly known as the R400 million scheme. It was instituted mainly to save farmers from sequestration. This scheme did not proceed altogether according to plan. The initial signals sent out indicated that there were a large number of farmers who were on the point of being sequestrated. Initially this aid campaign was therefore aimed chiefly at helping those who were on the point of being excussed to see whether we could not retain them in agriculture in some meaningful way.

Although the programme was launched in 1987, we have so far only received 140 applications at the directorate of financial assistance of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply. This number does not include the applications which are still with the agricultural credit committees.

So if we examine these 140 applications for the moment, without going into too much detail, we find that 99 of them were dealt with by the board and that approximately 30 individuals were granted assistance. So in this first round, in some way or other, we have, in essence, been able to help 30%or 33%of these farmers, who were on the point of being sequestrated, by way of assistance settlements, by the granting of further credit, by referring them to the Land Bank or by some other means. In regard to the remaining 66%it appeared that the debt burden was so unmanageably large that we could not, by way of settlement procedures, accommodate these farmers meaningfully in the available schemes. Consequently it was decided to amend this aid programme which had initially been announced and to grant more assistance with a view to helping more farmers. What this amended aid programme amounts to is that the utilisation of the R400 million, which had been appropriated, is being rescheduled to include the following adjustments. Firstly we must be in a position to continue with the normal consolidation of debt, and again agricultural value forms the basis. This is a normal extension of the department’s campaign. If a farmer’s financial position does not justify it, however, the Agricultural Credit Board will consider the possibility of an assisted settlement or, as an alternative, a full settlement with creditors in terms of section 22 of the Agricultural Credit Act.

This assisted settlement is a new form of assistance we are therefore introducing, one in which the Agricultural Credit Board evaluates the farmer’s debt and then makes an offer to the creditor for the settlement of a portion of the debt. The creditor must then write off the other portion of the debt. This assisted settlement applies chiefly to hire-purchase transactions which have, in the course of time, capitalised a large portion of the interest. One often finds that a tractor has been purchased for R30 000, but that the outstanding debt, after four or five years, is still R60 000 as a result of re-negotiated contracts and capitalised interest. In this way a meaningful offer can be made to have the interest written off without the creditor really losing any capital.

This approach still falls within the framework of the Agricultural Credit Act. The settlement procedure can also be proposed if this amount is exceeded.

Within the framework of this procedure there is consequently more scope, as far as agricultural credit is concerned, for ascertaining how we can again bring the debt burden of the farmers to a level where the land will be able to cover the debt. As a result of this campaign it is also unavoidable that in certain circumstances in which a farmer’s debt burden has become too great, and the farmer can therefore not be assisted in this way, he will be excussed and therefore be subject to the normal sequestration procedures. This will result in certain agricultural land coming onto the market. We shall have to examine this problem, which it could give rise to a further problem, ie that agricultural land coming onto the market, and serving as partial security for a major portion of the financing of a farmer, could decrease in value to such an extent that it could also give rise to a chain reaction. The department is therefore going to tread with caution in the property market as far as agricultural value is concerned, and we are carefully and selectively going to try to bolster agricultural value. Even in the case of farmers who would normally be sequestrated, in most cases we find that the Land Bank or the Agricultural Credit Board is already the holder of the first or second bonds, and this property could then in any case come under partial State control. When this land again has to be allocated, the idea is to adopt a new approach in regard to resettlement.

In the past the Act has provided that land which forms an economic unit and is in the possession of the State should first be sold by auction and should go to the highest bidder. Normally people then pay too much, thus promoting the over capitalisation of land. The idea is to make this land available, on a four-year basis, to those farmers who qualify in accordance with agricultural credit norms—we shall be examining that aspect. We could lease the land to the farmer. That would give him an opportunity to strengthen his financial position somewhat. If he then ultimately demonstrates that he really is a farmer who can farm, and if he basically succeeds in proving to the Agricultural Credit Board that he will not get into any further difficulties—norms will have to be laid down according to which this judgment can be made—we would then place this property at his disposal at agricultural value. In this way we would be able to resettle farmers. I think this is a very important new possibility in these circumstances.

A further aspect in regard to the re-scheduling of the R400 million is that a portion of these funds be employed to grant further production credit to farmers in terms of the Agricultural Credit Board’s debt consolidation plan. In many cases the farmer’s debt is consolidated, all his available security is taken up in the consolidation effort and he has no real capital or money left for planting his next crop. As far as that is concerned, the Agricultural Credit Board will also examine the extent to which such a farmer can be accommodated.

Apart from these proposals, there is also a long-term campaign—I think the hon the Minister will go into this in more detail—in regard to the re-scheduling or readaption of specific farmlands in the summer-grain areas. That is an aspect, however, that we can deal with at a later stage. That will constitute the department’s long-term reconstruction campaign. What I have just said about the R400 million chiefly involves the short-term campaign.

In regard to the livestock grazing scheme introduced in the drought-stricken north-western parts of the country and also in the Northern Transvaal, there are also certain very real problems. Qualifying for assistance in terms of the livestock grazing scheme at present means that a farmer must spend a certain amount of money before he actually receives any assistance from the State. This means that the farmer’s debt burden systematically increases, and this has reached the point where the debt burden has grown out of all proportion to the money-generating ability of either the farmer’s property or his livestock. We shall therefore also have to examine a re-scheduling of this aid campaign in such a way that farmers are still granted assistance without any concomitant increase in the farmer’s debts. We must also ensure that this does not embody any further costs to the State. These circumstances are being examined, and in this context I think we are in the process of meaningfully implementing a new campaign.

I want to leave hon members with a final thought in regard to the granting of assistance. When we really examine the problem of granting assistance in agriculture and analyse this problem, we find that financing has a dual basis. On the one hand there is the normal, careful financing procedure based on the ability of the land to cover the loans. On the other there is the provision of additional capital, which is chiefly employed for the purchasing of land and which is based on the market value of the land. Some of the past problems in agriculture have been that financial institutions largely made money available on the basis of the market value and the resale value of land. Ultimately, as a result of interest and inflation that intervened and disturbed the initial pattern, the farmer was left in an uncomfortable position as far as his debts were concerned. In other words, his debts could no longer be covered by the economic agricultural value of the land.

The Agricultural Credit Board—the focus of the assistance granted—uses agricultural value as a basis. I asked the Agricultural Credit Board to inform us of the basis it uses so that we can examine the set-up. I think that a great deal of the confusion and frustration surrounding the reasons why the assistance offered by the Agricultural Credit Board is not always granted, can be traced back to the fact that we do not really understand how agricultural value is calculated. What this briefly amounts to is that from the gross income of a certain property, specific variable costs such as inputs, fertilizer and so on are deducted. This then gives one a net farming income from which fixed overall costs are deducted. Then remunerative capital—ie not capital for land, but for improvements—is included, and R10 000 for management remuneration is also deducted. The amount remaining as net remuneration is then capitalised at the interest rate that should apply to that property. In this way we then arrive at the agricultural value which actually relates with the ability of the land to justify the loan granted. If, for example, there is a farmer who has a net income of R30 000 per year, and this is capitalised at a rate of say 10%, this means that the agricultural value of that property is R300 000. That is the amount of money the State would be able to make available, and the property can offer the R300 000 as security.

I have dwelt on this at some length because these are the basic economic norms we must use if we want to save agriculture and if agriculture is to have any future. Anyone falling outside these norms will not be in a position to receive assistance in the manner in which claims for such assistance are being made.

In regard to the long-term assistance, we shall only be able to survive in the long term when we restore the short-term potential of agriculture to such an extent that it can carry the financial burden of its debt. This campaign, which has economic merit, will have to run like a golden thread through all aid programmes, including projected long-term campaigns. Agriculture must again be placed within the broad framework of economic rules and regulations. If, in fact, we want to make meaningful progress in agriculture in the future, we shall also have to lay down requirements in regard to a quid pro quofor State assistance. I am referring to the fact that when assistance is granted to a farmer, for example, he could be required to improve his bookkeeping system. In the livestock grazing areas assistance has also been granted, and one could insist upon a subsequent quid pro quoin regard to the restoration of the land, which at present needs to recuperate to a large extent. We shall therefore have to place this overall package deal on a sound footing. That has been the aim of this overall campaign thus far. I think we have been reasonably successful.

At the beginning of the debate I broached a few aspects, and there are several matters that could be added to this. I am grateful for the positive tone that prevailed in the previous agricultural debate, the general affairs debate, and for the way in which all hon members approached the question of agriculture. I look forward to a pleasant debate today and tomorrow.

Mr Chairman, I should like to confirm the appreciation expressed by the hon the Deputy Minister to Dr Agenbach and to tell Dr Agenbach that we are very grateful that he has recovered. We appreciate the excellent service that he provides to agriculture and we wish him everything of the best; strength and good health too.

I should like to discuss the State guarantee given to co-operatives for production loans to farmers. Where the co-operatives, due to a lack of the necessary security, were no longer able to provide production credit, this scheme has in fact made it possible to provide production credit with the State guaranteeing that it would carry possible losses. The Land Bank provided the co-operatives with the funds and they in turn provided the farmers with funds. The State guaranteed that it would make good any losses if they occurred.

The purpose of this was to keep farmers on the farms and to give them another chance to recover under their own steam and to solve their problems in case it rained and conditions improved. In the third place, it was to save the farmer from sequestration. The irony is that this State guarantee is now leading to the sequestration of farmers. Due to the continued causes of the financial deterioration of farmers vis-à-vis inflation, interest and drought, there are at present many farmers who can no longer go on. It now seems that where a farmer voluntarily hands over his assets to his creditors, and where he voluntarily reaches a settlement with all his creditors, the State refuses to honour its guarantee to the co-operative unless the farmer is sequestrated and it is done by the co-operative. Where sequestration could have been avoided as a result of voluntary settlement, the State now forces the farmer into sequestration.

There are many advantages to the farmer’s reaching a voluntary settlement with his creditors. One of the obvious benefits is that there are fewer expenses involved. This results in the creditors receiving more than they would have if the farmer had been sequestrated. The second important point is that the position of the State with regard to this guarantee does not weaken; on the contrary, it improves. It is also a fact that the creditors with whom this farmer has reached a voluntary settlement, when this settlement is reached and consultation is entered into, focus on checking to see that assets are not being hidden, because it is their own interests that are at stake. They therefore make sure that all assets are handed over.

The greatest advantage of a voluntary settlement, however, is that the farmer is not sequestrated. We do not have to spell out the value of that today. In the first place the important thing that the farmer regards as being at stake—I do not think that I have to tell the hon the Deputy Minister this, as he himself knows there are 3 500 farmers in South Africa who are in this position—is his name. This is more important than anything else.

In the second place that man, if he is not sequestrated, has a much better chance of starting a new life than he would have had with a sequestration order against him. That man could not for example become an estate agent if he had been sequestrated and this is also the case for many other things. Now, however, the State requires that before it honours its guarantee to the co-operative, the farmer has to be sequestrated in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act or the Insolvency Act.

Disgraceful!

The result of this is that in the area of the co-operative of which I am a member there are 600 farmers who are now confronted by this threat. As a result of the attitude of the State that sequestration has to take place, they are now staring sequestration in the face.

Apart from that there is the major problem of the co-operatives now having to launch this action. Can hon members imagine the position in which the co-operatives now find themselves? All the other creditors agree to a voluntary settlement but the co-operative, of which the man is a member and which he has helped to build up, now becomes the Frankenstein that has to go and chop off his head. How is the co-operative industry going to be affected by that? It can only have one effect. It is going to deal the co-operatives a shrewd blow if they have to begin wiping out their members at the insistence of the State when all the other creditors are satisfied.

I therefore want to request the hon the Minister by way of representation that the test should not be whether the man is sequestrated but whether all his assets have been handed over. That should be the test, and for that there are methods other than necessarily sequestrating him. I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister that where it will be in the interest of everyone that the man hands over his assets, a sequestration should not take place. His creditors are going to gain by it, but the person himself will also be able to make a better new start in life.

I therefore ask the hon the Minister for what reason does the State not want to accept a voluntary settlement? Is there any legal provision that prohibits or prevents the State from accepting a voluntary settlement? I therefore ask the hon the Minister—I shall be pleased if he could give us a reply tomorrow—whether there are any legal restrictions that prevent the State from accepting such a voluntary settlement.

They could surely amend it.

In the second place I want to ask, if there is a legal restriction, whether the State will not accept the sale of a person’s assets in terms of a summons for execution or a summons for excussion. In other words a summons is issued, but the person is not sequestrated. There are procedures that could be put into operation. It is going to result in more costs than a voluntary settlement, but it would still save the farmer from sequestration and prevent it from happening to him.

The State has made R400 million available this year to prevent the sequestration of farmers. To manage that a settlement with creditors is required. This requires the State to use a part of this R400 million to prevent the sequestrations. Here I am speaking of a case where a voluntary settlement is reached, where the State need not make use of this R400 million. Now the State comes along and says that it does not want such a voluntary settlement; sequestration must first take place.

That is a disgrace!

I must say that this is quite beyond me. I cannot understand why it must be done. If there are legal restrictions, we must be informed, and we also want to know if an alternative could not be followed to avoid it.

I want to conclude by telling the hon the Minister that so far we have come through these six years of drought and we can only do one thing today and that is to take off our hats to the farmers for the courage and the staying power that they have displayed. I nonetheless am beginning to see the signs—I think hon members will also realise this—that there are people who are now beginning to lose hope.

The farmers’ courage is threatening to fail them. Officials of the co-operatives telephoned some of these people for whom the R400 million was meant and told them to apply for a settlement. Those people simply said listlessly: “Oh, let them come and take my things. I am throwing in the towel; I do not know what to do anymore.” The one section of the population, who, in spite of South Africa’s problems, held out to the very last and kept up their courage is the farming population—that section of the population that is bound to the country by means of the land.

I therefore lodge an appeal with the hon the Minister today with all the seriousness that I can muster not to force sequestration on the farmers where it can be avoided, because who are the people involved? They are those farmers who farmed so extensively that they did not really qualify for assistance from the Agricultural Credit Board. They are therefore our major farmers. They are the farmers who showed entrepreneurial spirit. Those men are now being broken, and I say that it has an effect on the other farmers. It is like a funeral, when one knows that one’s people are falling and not even the necessary is being done to prevent this final humiliation, where these people are going to hand over the assets voluntarily and walk out naked, from befalling these people. I therefore ask the hon the Minister in all earnestness and in the interest of South Africa, the co-operatives and all the farmers not to allow these hundreds of farmers to end up in that position while it is in fact possible to avert it and to give them a chance again to make an honourable beginning and to lift their heads so that everyone can be given courage again. I say again that I believe the rains are coming, and then things will be different in South Africa. We must not allow these things to happen on the home stretch. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour. Allow me to say thank you, on behalf of this House, to Dr Dawid Agenbach. The hon Deputy Minister has already done so, but I should like to do it on a personal level. Over the years we got to know him not only as an industrious official, but also as a true Namaqualand gentleman. Not only do we want to thank him, but we also want to tell him that we are very pleased to see him here after his serious illness. We extend our wishes that his retirement years will bloom just as beautifully as Namaqualand is going to be blooming now.

The hon member for Lichtenburg broached the question of State guarantees. I want to leave it at that. The hon the Minister may respond to that. I just want to congratulate the hon member on a very stalwart and fine contribution. In the course of my speech I shall also be paying attention to a whole number of matters raised by the hon member.

During the last few years we have discussed a great deal the dilemma in which agriculture finds itself. We have also discussed it a great deal during this session, particularly in the debate on the private member’s motion of the hon member for Lichtenburg. We argued seriously about all the reasons why agriculture has landed in this dilemma and what could be done to contribute to its recovery. However, it was also pointed out that the recovery is slow; in some cases there is almost no recovery.

Perhaps we have spoken too much by now. Fortunately the hon the State President is working intensively for and showing an intense interest in agriculture in South Africa, and because he believes that talking alone will not help, he has introduced the special agricultural restructuring committee, which has already started with its activities and has produced its first report. I look forward with expectation to further reports on the work that this committee will be doing.

One does not want to examine once again the wide variety of factors that led to the dilemma in agriculture, but I do believe that the financial factor is one of the most important. The hon member for Lichtenburg also referred to this. Let us examine the situation in agriculture and Agricultural Credit in particular, or rather the Directorate: Financial Assistance of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply. I personally believe that this department is one of our most important, one which could make a real contribution to placing agriculture back on its feet again.

We know now, however, that Agricultural Credit has one particularly weak point ie that it has too little money. The proof of that is that the buying of land has been suspended, the housing loans are changed or amended every second year because there is in fact too little money available, etc. This same department, however, has a very strong point that counts in its favour and that is that it offers affordable interest rates to agriculture.

I should like to use these affordable interest rates as a golden thread. This weak point of insufficient funds is in my view also the greatest single weak point experienced by us with regard to restructuring agriculture. Apart from so many other problems existing in agriculture and the obstacles standing in the way of its recovery, there are actually two things which in my opinion are of cardinal importance, and I am now speaking in broad terms. The first is input costs and the second is interest rates.

I say that a farmer could always try to make a plan as far as input costs are concerned; he can move some things around and change others. One thing that he simply has to pay, however, is interest. Besides, the interest rates are normally high; in the last few years they have been sky-high.

With regard to the so-called market related interest rates let me say that there are market forces over which the farmer has no control. At the end of the day he simply has to pay that interest. These tremendously high interest rates are the greatest single death blow to the farmer on the farm. If anyone believes that interest rates have really decreased so drastically, he should really go and look at the interest rates, the less financially powerful farmer, particularly the young farmer who I believe should really be at issue, has to pay on overdraft facilities at commercial banks. It is anything from 18%to 23%. What is more, these men’s credit ceiling is still being lowered as well. Where they have to find the money to lower it, I do not know. In my view it is understandable, seen from the viewpoint of the commercial bank, because it has to look at its short-term profits. However, it is unpardonable in light of the survival of the farmer and what will be in the best interests of the country in the end.

It is very clear to me that agriculture will have to seek its salvation in its own financial institutions. I therefore want to express strong support for the recommendation of the special committee on page 4 that the institutions involved should be persuaded to lower interest rates for those farmers specifically. Most of them pay, let us say 20%, they paid 20%last year and the previous two years, 28%. As the farmer sees it, he has therefore returned the bank’s capital plus a little of the profit as well.

As the Agricultural Credit Board has little money, we are too dependent on ad hocallocations, although one is very grateful for them in times of need. I feel agriculture in South Africa is not grateful enough for the assistance that is given. In earlier years regular allocations were made out of State funds to the Land Bank and to the Agricultural Credit Board. This has been frozen for quite a few years for a variety of reasons. When one looks back now I am inclined to say that it quite possibly was a mistake, because today the Land Bank has to function on the open market. This brings us back to market-related interest rates. Today the Land Bank and the Agricultural Credit Board administers ad hocemergency funds to a great extent. I immediately admit that I am oversimplifying now, but the impression is nevertheless being created that this is the position at present. I know the Land Bank is not really involved here, but I just want to make this one statement about it. If the financial manager of a co-operative here in the Boland is not at the moment making use of bank acceptance and prime rates at a commercial bank rather than short-term Land Bank funds, he should be dismissed and replaced.

The interests rates of the funds of the Land Bank are just so much higher. I therefore want to ask in all earnestness that we begin making a re-examination to see whether we cannot use State funds to extend Agricultural Credit as well as the Land Bank. In that way Agricultural Credit—not only in times of need, but throughout the year under different circumstances, whether it be at a good or bad time—can give assistance to farmers at reasonable rates. In this way I believe that meaningful assistance can be given to agriculture on different conditions, at different interest rates and under different circumstances.

Ad hocmeasures I willingly admit, will always be necessary. I believe, however, that we shall be able to use it on a much smaller scale and then also as little as possible. Whether we like to know it or not, however, these ad hocmeasures in fact help one farmer but not the other. They assist the one farmer more than his neighbour. That assistance could very easily come too late—the hon member for Lichtenburg also referred to this—and sufficient assistance cannot be given to everyone. However, we know that too. The result of that is very simple, ie that stories and rumours circulate. One neighbour tells another that he received assistance in a specific way, and eventually it causes a complete political stir as a result of dissatisfaction. That is when the evil day begins, once politics manifests itself in agriculture. Eventually the good farmer is the most dissatisfied because he has received the least assistance.

I am convinced that if we want to place the agricultural industry on a firm and permanent basis, new ideas will be necessary so that the farmer will eventually know exactly where and when and from whom, as well as in what way he can ask for assistance. This applies to difficult as well as better days. In this way the farmer knows where to go because the system will have sufficient funds and will also be well organised. A similar system and method would therefore also remove the Government from the centre of activity. It will give the farmers of the country a greater measure of peace of mind. To put it briefly, it will finally remove the agricultural industry from the political arena.

At present few people are being satisfied. The businessman looks at the extent of the funds that are being spent on agriculture; the taxpayer will express his dissatisfaction because, in his opinion, the farmer is receiving too much money out of his, the taxpayer’s, pocket. The industrialist is levelling a constant barrage of criticism because agriculture is in fact being favoured too much at the expense of his interests. Politically speaking, the whole exercise is unacceptable. Eventually the saying remains true, ie that if one lends or gives money to a friend, one makes an enemy of him. The worst of all is that these ad hocmeasures do not at all help the farmer who is in the process of going bankrupt. The hon member for Lichtenburg also referred to this. This really is the most serious charge. The farmer with few problems is also unhappy about this entire system. Farmers elsewhere in the country are dissatisfied because they believe that all the funds are just being spent in certain parts of the country and that they themselves receive nothing.

I want to lodge an earnest appeal for this R400 million that we now have at our disposal be used differently as well. The hon Deputy Minister has just referred to the fact that 140 applications are awaiting a reply, of which two thirds have been turned down. With regard to those who are staring sequestration in the face, I do not think that there is much more that can be done when one takes these facts into account. I am sorry to admit this, but it is in fact a problem.

I do not want to go into all the reasons why farmers do not want to apply. I think that one of the major single reasons is a psychological one. The hon member for Lichtenburg also referred to this. A farmer really is a very proud person. The moment when one goes to sit around that table, the whole community is informed of the fact that one is actually bankrupt. I am therefore particularly grateful for this new way of thinking. The hon Deputy Minister referred to it, and these winds of change are also blowing from the direction of the department. A new way of thinking is imminent; a fresh breeze that is blowing.

While we are speaking of scheduling, adjustments and this allocation of R400 million, may I ask that we do it quickly? That is why I want to ask that we will use this money mainly for the farmer who really is on his way to possible sequestration in a few years. We must rescue him now, long before we arrive at section 22; I am not even speaking of section 28.

We know that that fresh new breeze is blowing through the department, and at this stage I want to congratulate the men, and specifically Mr Kritzinger and his Agricultural Credit Board, on their new way of thinking and in particular on the fact that if assistance is given to such a farmer, it is done in a scientific way, checks are built in and it is not a question of hand-outs. The board examines the person’s cash flow and helps him with that, and if he is in fact saved, the board still gives him a few years of after-care.

Taking everything into account, and to return to this problem, one could ask whether there really is a farmer somewhere who is satisfied with the present situation even after R1,1 billion. That is why I want to ask that we stop speaking and start doing something, and that we apply this new fresh way of thinking.

I again want to ask that we also strengthen agricultural credit with State funds in normal years. I know it is a big word, but if we really want to help and build up agriculture, we cannot continue with ad hocfinancial assistance when an emergency situation arises somewhere. I want to ask that we work out the schemes which the Agricultural Credit has to apply in good time, that we come up with different types of loans with different interest rates and different terms, that in the whole process we decide that we are no longer giving anything away for free and that we are moving away from having too many of these ad hocmeasures. We shall be able to do this, because we shall then have enough funds and will administer them correctly. This can be administered correctly and is already being done by a capable board with capable officials and by way of the excellent, selfless and charitable service provided by local agricultural credit committees. I am very pleased to see that these people’s allowances have been slightly increased so that apart from breakfast they can now afford lunch as well.

I think that this will eventually be the only way in which the Government can be removed from the centre of activity, from the constant criticism so that it can be spared the political attacks that it very often really does not deserve—hon members must pardon me, because I am standing on this side.

I want to ask that we shall leave this matter with adequate funds for experts to administer it in the best interests of agriculture in South Africa so that the farmer will know where to find assistance when he is in need and so that those experts can place him on a road to complete eventual recovery.

In conclusion I make the appeal that we stop talking and do something concrete about this matter.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Wellington has asked us now to stop the talking and to get on with the action and I think we must all agree with him on that. I am going to come away from the unhappy field of agricultural finance and talk about another aspect of the department’s operations and that is research.

Research is carried oút in almost all fields of agricultural activity and I think it is true to say today that a scientific and analytical approach to all farming problems is necessary if farming is to be carried out successfully and on an economic basis.

We obtain the benefits of international research and in turn we spread our acquired knowledge over as wide a field as possible. International co-operation—the pooling of knowledge—is vital and the cross-fertilization of ideas at every level has helped the improvement of agricultural techniques worldwide.

All this brings me to a question that I want to ask of the hon the Minister. How can research be an own affairs matter? How can the major resources of the department in this field be directed to the White group only? The products of this research are for the use of all South Africans without regard to race. Is it envisaged that each race group in South Africa is going to have its own research facility and operation? If this is the case, the duplication of operations would be stupid in the extreme. If there is one field of endeavour and activity where the maximum co-operation is desirable for the general good, it must be in research.

The financial implications of duplication in this field are frightening and obviously it would be quite ridiculous to run separate research operations and fund them. I think hon members will all agree that research must be of benefit to all farmers, whatever their colour.

When it comes to input, it would be ridiculous to restrict employment as researchers to individuals belonging to a particular race group. Perhaps I should ask the hon the Minister what his approach is to the principle of the employment of researchers and scientists who are not White in this department. Does the department employ Black, Coloured and Indian researchers in their operations and, if not, why not?

Are you a racist?

Do they employ all colours of people in this department? Is there a bar to a person of colour working together with Whites in this department?

I presume that the department is not averse to employing people from foreign countries as researchers because of their particular areas of expertise for example and, if this is the case, it would be totally illogical to bar the employment of other South Africans in similar jobs.

I am absolutely certain that in lower level posts the department is dependent in many of its activities on people who are not White. If only Whites may be employed as researchers, the whole matter becomes nonsensical. I would like to know from the hon the Minister what exactly the policy of the Government and the department is in this regard, and I hope he is going to be able to reassure me on this point.

I would like to hear from him on the principle behind the inclusion of research as an own affair. How can research be the exclusive province of the Whites in South Africa and, if it is not their exclusive province, how can the duplication of research operations possibly be justified on any grounds at all? I would very sincerely want to hear from the hon the Minister on that matter. I would suggest that he take this matter to the Cabinet with a view to transferring research to general affairs.

I think that he would agree with me that the way land is farmed anywhere in Southern Africa is going to influence our agricultural future. It is not a bit of good carrying out soil conservation programmes in some sections of our country and leaving out others. In fact, co-ordination and co-operation in all conservation matters is vital. If topsoil is going to be washed down our rivers from certain areas, the success of conservation in other areas is going to be adversely affected.

We in these benches see South Africa as one country, and particularly in respect of this portfolio we believe that agriculturally South Africa must be seen as one country. So-called White agriculture would be nowhere if it were not for the labour input of Black South Africans. How can it be termed White agriculture when it is probable that the majority of people actually doing the work are not White?

This is where I have grave problems with the principles of the policy under which this Government operates. Just because ownership of land is vested in Whites it does not mean that others are not contributing considerably to the working of that land. Many of those people live on that land and have lived there for generations.

As employees.

Yes, as employees, but why should one decry anybody because he is an employee, and not grant him the benefits of what he is presenting to the land?

You sound like a communist. [Interjections.]

If there is any sphere of Government activity which should be general affairs, that sphere is agriculture.

I would like to go on to another matter, and again I would like some answers from the hon the Minister on the question of the use of herbicides and pesticides. I note from the departmental report that there are various problems in this connection, particularly with regard to things like residues in foodstuffs. The presence of dieldrin in fresh milk is a problem and some of the herbicides and soil systemic insecticides have adverse effects on follow-up crops and persist in the soil for a long time. Tebuthiuron appears to have limited adverse ecological effects and certainly seems to be a substitute for 2,4,5-T. I would like to ask the hon the Minister about the legal situation with regard to this chemical 2,4,5-T and similar chemicals. Is its use banned in South Africa, as it is in many other countries?

These “agent orange” type herbicides are so dangerous that it would be grossly stupid to be using them. If usage is banned in the Republic, is their manufacture also banned? I am continually hearing that various chemical companies are continuing to produce these dangerous substances for use outside the borders of South Africa. I believe that to continue manufacturing substances of this nature, when usage is banned for good reason in the Republic, is morally reprehensible and should be stopped. They do permanent damage to the ecology and the fact that this may be happening outside our borders in adjoining territories does not alter the fact that the moral responsibility rests with us if we manufacture it. I think that it would be in the public interest for the hon Minister to make clear the attitude of the Government concerning not only the usage, but also the manufacture of these substances.

While I am on the subject of chemicals, I believe that the practice of poisoning carcasses and baits for predators and other creatures that are considered a nuisance, should be stopped by law and that severe penalties should be laid down for any contraventions thereof. In some instances a horrifying death toll has been exacted of endangered bird and animal species by the thoughtless use of poisons, often directed towards species other than the ones that have suffered. It is too risky a method of control to be allowed, and I must urge the hon the Minister to take steps in this direction.

Mr Chairman, I should like to discuss a different subject to that dealt with by the hon member for Bryanston, who spoke about research. I should like to make use of this opportunity to say something about extension services in agriculture.

The hon member for Bryanston used this opportunity to indulge in a little constitutional politicking on how research could be an own affair, and could serve the White agricultural sector. I do not wish to debate this issue with him. I want to tell him, however, that he should just examine the various needs of the commercial and subsistence agricultural sectors, and he would understand that there is, in fact, some logic in this. Whatever the case may be, we serve the other population groups on an agency basis as far as research is concerned.

I should like to associate myself with the previous speakers in extending my good wishes to Dr Dawid Agenbach. As an ex-extension officer, who served in the same department as he did, it is a great pleasure for me to wish him well. On occasion he was my lecturer and I have a great respect for him. I wish him a well-earned rest.

At this stage I should like to appeal to everyone involved in agriculture to view with concern what is, in my opinion, an increasingly greater rift developing between the city-dweller and the farmer, between the consumer and the producer. I think that we should all make sure that the unique requirements of the agricultural industry should be impressed on the clients of that industry. There are different political parties and different bodies connected with the agricultural sector, and it our task to ensure that our clients understand what unique problems the agricultural industry has.

I shall mention just one. It is the well-known elasticity of supply and demand which, in the case of agriculture, is a problem. The motor industry can plan the supply of its products down to the last detail as a result of marketing studies according to which the demand for its products may accurately be determined virtually a year in advance. In the agricultural industry this is not possible for climatological and other reasons. Therefore the supply of our products creates a problem for us because we cannot be sure how many of these products we are eventually going to place on the market. Therefore it is virtually an impossible task to stimulate the demand for most agricultural products to such an extent that we are locally able to absorb the overproduction which is now plaguing us.

When a man earns more money, one can encourage him to buy more motor vehicles or other luxury items, but one certainly cannot convince a housewife to buy more than one loaf of brown bread a day and to use it. That is our problem.

Therefore I am advocating that this be taken into account. I am thankful to be able to say that I feel that the agriculture debate is increasingly becoming less of a political debate in this House. For me, personally, this is really something we owe to the agricultural industry. We are also indebted to everyone who has taken part in this agriculture debate so far.

As I said, Sir, I want to refer to extension services in agriculture. When we refer to the report of the Economic Advisory Committee, we see that only 22%of the debt burden of agriculture during the past few years was a direct result of the drought. More than 30%is agricultural debt which was incurred for other reasons, and it is specifically the interest on that debt which is causing problems. More than 40%of the problems facing the agricultural industry are a result of inflation.

Therefore in order to escape this financially oppressive situation in the agricultural industry, it is necessary for the State to define the short-term, medium-term, and long-term measures to which my hon colleagues will be referring in the course of the debate in this House.

We shall have to assist the farmer so that he can extricate himself from this plight. Hon members can see what an important role financial management should play in the restructuring programme for agriculture.

Extension services in agriculture and especially agricultural-economic extension services will therefore play an extremely important role in ensuring that we greatly improve our financial management. We know that farmers are not very fond of paperwork. We have seen, with the announcement of the repayments on agricultural diesel, what problems the farmers had with this, mainly as a result of the additional administrative work involved. We in the agricultural industry will have to discipline ourselves to apply better financial management than is the case at present. There are literally hundreds of reports pointing to this shortcoming in the agricultural industry. There are farmers who maintain an excellent standard of financial management, but there is still too large a percentage of farmers who maintain a poor standard. As a result they have great difficulty in extricating themselves from their financial predicament.

The misspending of funds, and especially of money that one borrows at a high interest rate, can very quickly cause one serious problems. I think we should make sure that we take a good look at that aspect and I am therefore advocating that from the point of view of agricultural extension services, especially financial extension services, we seek to furnish a better service to our farming community.

I am also advocating relief for agricultural extension officers, especially those connected with the public service, by means of better remuneration packages, which are market-orientated. I know that at the moment agricultural extension officers get one salary notch more than other officials with equivalent qualifications and that they are also given the advantage of subsidised transport. However, I am afraid that when we look at the labour force at our disposal, this is not enough. I feel that we should give urgent attention to our agricultural extension officers in this country by means of differentiated salary scales, as is done in other professions, for example the medical corps, the veterinary corps, and the engineering corps, etc. Then we would be able to render a really important service to our agricultural industry.

In a previous debate I took a stand on the reports that were doing the rounds about plans being made, on the strength of the recommendations of the Kolb report, to bureaucratise agricultural extension services, research and also training. I came out strongly against bureaucratisation, because in my opinion it would adversely affect the overall services to agriculture. I advocated voluntary co-ordination similar to that launched in the Highveld area, especially in respect of co-ordinated agricultural extension services between the private sector and all other bodies such as the State, the cooperatives, and the marketing boards, etc.

However I have had criticism of this view from extension officers because they tell me that the system of voluntary co-operation simply does not have the necessary force to ensure that we get a co-ordinated message, via the agricultural extension services, to the farmer. Therefore I am prepared to accept that we should place, under the auspices of a control board falling outside the ambit of the Commission for Administration, those bodies—namely the State, the co-operatives and the marketing boards—which are geared to satisfying the unconscious need that fanners have for information. One could call it an agricultural extension board, with its own control board co-ordinating its own policy logistics and extension bulletins. In this way we would give more potency to this whole operation. I cannot, however, support the idea of forcing the private sector to join in this scheme. According to scientific analysis the private sector is mainly concerned with satisfying a conscious need for agricultural information.

Order! I am sorry to have to tell the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, it does not often happen that the hon member for Overvaal, a Whip of the Official Opposition, is so friendly to me. I thank him sincerely.

You have talked so much that the hon member for Kuruman, sitting there next to you, has fallen asleep! [Interjections.]

The private sector is geared to fulfilling the conscious need for information, and therefore the private sector is also prepared to play its part in financing general extension activities by these means. However, if we force the private sector to participate in this agricultural extension board, to help finance it and thus determine its requirements, in my opinion we will be unnecessarily bureaucratising all of the extension activities in South Africa. There is scope for extension from private bodies, which are also market-orientated, and there is scope for financing by the private sector via its own extension activities. I believe that in the creation of such an agricultural extension board and the expanding of its activities to all parts of our country, the private sector will be forced—and I use “forced” in inverted commas—to take part in these co-ordinated extension activities.

In my opinion the co-operative is one of the bodies that will play an increasingly more important role in future with regard to extension relating to financial management, because the co-operative is the agent of the State and it injects millions of rand into the agricultural sector every year by means of loans. I think that it is only right that it be ascertained that this money which is made available is being spent for the purpose for which it is made available. The need for financial extension is one of which many farmers are not aware because, as I have said, many farmers are not very fond of paperwork. I therefore believe that financial management, like soil conservation and extension services relating to soil conservation, can be administered by means of an agricultural extension board, as an unidentified need for extension among farmers.

It is only when we launch these campaigns, that the agricultural sector will be in the position to compete with the other sectors of our economy once again. Therefore I am asking the hon the Minister to allow the services rendered to agriculture in South Africa to develop further along these lines.

Mr Chairman, I would like to compliment the hon member for Sasolburg on his very enlightening speech. He made some very interesting points and while to a great extent I do support some of his comments in regard to the privatisation of services, I think one must also add a word of warning that this must not be overemphasised, because we have seen instances where organisations have undertaken a form of extension work, not necessarily for the benefit of the farmers but from the point of view of selling their products and not with the intention of doing the farming community any favours.

I should also like to pay tribute to Dr Agenbach, wish him a speedy recovery and wish him well in his retirement. I hope that we will see him up in the midlands of Natal before too long.

I was pleased to hear from what the hon the Deputy Minister had to say that a great deal of consideration had obviously been given to the R400 million assistance programme—if I may call it that—and the basis on which it would be applied. I hope that this will be ongoing, because it is absolutely vital that greater flexibility is applied in relation to these assistance programmes. This one in particular, as the hon member for Lichtenburg has pointed out, is a highly sensitive one. From that point of view, therefore, I am pleased to hear that consideration is being given to adapting it more to the conditions that apply from time to time.

The hon member for Wellington made a very interesting observation and one which I have supported for some time regarding the relationship between the producer and the consumer. It is pleasing to note that there are hon members on those benches who are prepared to send out this message as well.

In paying tribute to the officials of the Department may I also record my appreciation to the previous Minister who held this portfolio, namely Mr Sarel Hayward. His contribution to agriculture is all too well known, but I think on this occasion it is fitting that his contribution should be acknowledged.

To those members too who serve on the board of the Land Bank and on the Agricultural Credit Board, may I say that agriculture and the farmers in general owe them a debt of gratitude. This applies as well to those agricultural credit committees that carry out the hard and difficult task of having to visit farms and make difficult recommendations.

I want to touch briefly on an aspect that has already been raised by the hon member for Bryanston. I really feel that the time has come for this department to be brought under one roof. In other words I would like to see agriculture as a whole come under the one roof of general affairs as it is an industry that covers the entire country and affects all people equally.

One has to be realistic and face up to the fact that this is the direction in which events are moving and are going to move in the future. We are already halfway there. When one looks at the manner in which the agricultural industry is being administered at the present time, one finds that there are four departments of agriculture, excluding those of the self-governing and the national states resulting in all the unnecessary costs and excessive duplication and administration attached to such a system.

Again one has to be realistic. We have to appreciate the fact that the exclusivity of land-ownership is a thing of the past, and that the doors of the agricultural industry are going to have to be opened very much wider for greater participation by other race groups. It is all very well for my friends on my right to gasp, but I want to tell them that this is an event that is already taking place. Permits are being applied for and granted in terms of the Group Areas Act, subject, of course, to the philosophy of local option, the origin of which is well-known.

The interesting thing here is that in cases where permission is not granted, one finds an increasing tendency towards farms being purchased behind a White front. This is a ridiculous situation, because if the agricultural industry ever needed stimulation it is now, by the injection of finance. I think this is something that should be welcomed, no matter which form it comes in.

One also has to realise that the lack of land in relation to the other race groups is creating problems which affect not only them, but also the natural resources in this country. That is why I say that we have to look at this practically, because if those natural resources are being destroyed due to a shortage of land and due to the fact that agricultural practices are being carried out in those areas which are not conducive to good farming practices, then we all suffer.

I also want to deal with the question of co-ordinated research which was referred to briefly this afternoon. It is true that research as such, particularly research relevant to the House of Assembly, is applicable to the country as a whole. The results of the research conducted in this country are therefore available to all, irrespective of the source from which it comes. The utilisation of that research, however, is a very different matter, and this is one of the areas where I feel it is so essential that one does adopt a more unified approach to its application.

At this stage I wish to deal briefly with a problem which has been raised in regard to the position of the co-operatives and the problems they are experiencing in relation to the financial position of the farmer.

I want to make it very clear that the trend that is causing considerable concern is the fact—I have said this before in this House, and I shall say it again if necessary—that co-operatives are no longer answerable—or do not regard themselves as being answerable—to their members. The position has now been arrived at where the members are regarded as being accountable to their co-operatives. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, there is no doubt that the hon member for Mooi River is a friend of the farmer, and he is also a friend of our party’s agricultural policy. I thank him, and I wish to say that it is a pleasure to follow him.

*Mr Chairman, in his reply to my maiden speech our hon Minister of Agriculture invited me to read his maiden speech. I find myself so strongly in agreement with what the hon the Minister said in that speech of his that I should like to use his premises to introduce my theme today, namely the part that our soil conservation committees can play in placing agricultural production on a stable economic footing.

Before I elaborate on this, allow me to congratulate the hon the Minister, because it happens to be 21 years ago today that he made his maiden speech in this House, on 25 August 1966.

Hear, hear!

It is a great honour for me as a newcomer to congratulate the hon the Minister and to wish him well.

The hon the Minister stated at the time that the use that was made of the conservation machinery would depend on the 815 soil conservation committees and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. The hon the Minister described three challenges that had to be faced. All three concerned planning, and they were of a physical, biological and economic nature. The person who practised soil conservation was the farmer, and he was entitled to make a living; that was the hon the Minister’s standpoint. I regard the farmer’s economic welfare as the key to conservation.

†Today conservation committees have a far wider role to play than the original idea of policing the district against erosion or whatever was taking place. Where the committees’ approach has embraced a far wider connotation, a far more stable economic situation has come about. Today we talk of strategy and a blueprint for production because each farm has its own potential. In many parts of our country some incredibly clever and dedicated people have cut loose and really serve agriculture. Universities and research and experiment stations have showered the farmer with information and masses of knowledge, and if he lags behind he has, in many instances, only himself to blame. Know-how is available only at the cost of the farmer’s own time. Advice is available and plentiful. It is up to the farmer to decide to sift and to apply this advice in his environment according to his management ability.

Some older farmers, with due respect, battle with new terms like soil classification, TDN, TAM, feed conversion factors etc. To our older farmers who have sons following committees’ advice I say: You ought not to be working so hard; you should be giving way a bit lest you stifle the enthusiasm or the spirit of your sons. They have experienced and survived a vicious drought. They are winning farming competitions. They are getting involved in the affairs of the district, unselfishly share their knowledge and attend courses and study groups. A friend of mine in conservation calls them the stormtroopers of the agricultural revolution.

It is clear that with the country’s two main crutches removed by the behaviour of gold and the weather pattern over the past few years, everyone has had to think again.

In times of national abundance it is easy to provide a free lunch, but hard times came. The survival stakes ensured realism and truth. If the truth of our agricultural economics is interpreted correctly, I believe foundations of historic import are laid. With hindsight, I pose the question: When did agriculture experience its best times? Was it not when consumption and production were more or less evenly balanced?

The first option is going to be one of making the producer understand the needs of the consumer, be they for food, fibre, alcohol or fuel. To continue overproducing is tantamount to asking for a free meal. That will be suicidal for our country in the long run.

The second factor is that of input costs. Here I must associate myself with the hon member for Wellington. These have very wide implications because it is the choice of the production enterprise as to whether it is undertaken intensively or extensively, or both that will determine the input cost structure. It is the one factor over which the farmer has the greatest influence and which will either make or break him financially. The choice of commodity, or combinations thereof, or as to what to specialize in, needs to be decided upon.

The techniques which are applied to surface water management and run-off control, labour strategy, transport and machinery management, disease control and seed or bloodstock sources all have to be assessed. Advice is all important in this regard.

The soil conservation committee, consisting of leading farmers and drawing on the expertise of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply, the co-ops and the marketing boards, is all-important. After all, to seek the advice of specialists is not a sign of inadequacy but a measure of our common sense.

Mr Chairman, unemployment is probably one of the biggest problems in the Eastern Cape. One of the reasons for this is that the Eastern Cape has nothing in the way of mineral wealth. We do have other advantages, however, for example land of good quality, a reservoir of labour and, with two harbour cities on our doorstep, our location.

This brings us to the Bushmans River irrigation area. The Bushmans River extends from Annsvilla in the north to Kenton and Bushmans River Mouth, where it flows into the sea. It also forms the division between the constituencies of Albany and Sundays River. The first trekkers from the south settled alongside the Bushmans River in 1780. This was where the first irrigation in the Eastern Cape took place. The Bushmans River was part of the Orange River scheme as early as 1947.

An infrastructure has been built up here over a period of two centuries. There is already an established road network, fully developed farming units, Eskom networks, grain silos in Paterson, a co-operative with five branches, processing factories, a chicory control board, Harvest Time’s factory, and schools that are emptying.

The catchment area of the Bushmans River includes seven farmers’ association service areas. This area has to contend with a financial crisis of survival. It is significant that this region, one of the oldest irrigation areas, had no part in the Orange River development projects amounting to almost R500 million to its west, north and east.

With the advent of Eskom the riparian owners emptied this river. The result is that established farmers, especially vegetable farmers, experienced a financial crisis. At present approximately 2 000 ha is irrigated when water is available.

During the past five years the position in the vegetable production area of Harvest Time has been as follows. In 1982 approximately 191 ha was used for the cultivation of vegetables; in 1983 it was 152 ha; in 1984, 89 ha; in 1985, 36 ha, and this year no land was used to produce vegetables for freezing. There is 5 000 ha which can still be irrigated. By means of a tunnel of approximately 3 km and a canal of 8 km. Orange River water can be channelled from the Beenleegte canal to the Bushmans River. This could mean that approximately 2 500 to 3 000 employment opportunities could be created. It could also be a powerful economic injection for the farmers in this area and for that reason it is important for the economic stabilisation of the farming community in this area.

I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister to help us by making funds available to enable these farmers to make a viable living once again.

There is another matter that I want to draw to the hon the Minister’s attention. When new irrigation areas are established—we are thinking particularly of the irrigation schemes for Ciskei and the Committees area in the Lower Fish River area—the Department of Water Affairs should assist us in creating a road infrastructure. At present the building of these roads is the responsibility of the Algoa Regional Services Council, but unfortunately no funds are available for the building of roads. We feel very strongly, therefore, that if irrigation areas are established, an infrastructure should be created as well.

There is another matter that is very important to me, and that is the financial position of the farmers in the Eastern Cape. This applies to the farmers in the Alexandria-Albany area in particular. During the past five years these farmers have been burdened by a terrible drought. The agricultural farmers, the wheat and even the chicory farmers, in particular, have gone through a very difficult period. I should like to thank the banks, the Land Bank as well as the commercial banks, that assisted these farmers.

I do not know what the problem is, but unfortunately our farmers in that area cannot get assistance from the Agricultural Credit Board. The Agricultural Credit Board did not grant many loans to farmers. I made a survey, and it was shocking to see what large amounts the commercial banks and the Land Bank in particular had granted in this area. That is why I want to request today, that just as there is a special scheme for the summer rainfall areas, a special scheme should be established for these farmers in this part of the Eastern Cape.

Mr Chairman, I should like to react to what the hon member for Albany said at the end of my speech. If there is no time to do so then, I should like to do so tomorrow afternoon.

Today I merely want to say that if we think that we shall be able to talk all our agricultural problems away with this debate on agriculture and water supply, we shall be making a big mistake. The fact is that agriculture is like a living organism, and is not static. It changes constantly, and so do its problems. It is almost like one’s life cycle. One is born, one begins to understand things and starts getting hidings, and then one wishes that one could go to school to be rid of one’s strict mother. When one starts going to school, one finds out that there is homework that has to be done. If it is not done, one gets a hiding. Then one wishes that one could leave school, to earn money oneself—that would improve matters. Then one gets into the business world and finds that the cost of living engulfs one. If only one could get married—particularly with the prospects of separate taxation held out by the Margo Commission—things would be better. I need not elaborate on the results of a marriage. Then one wants to have children, to keep one’s wife busy. [Interjections.] We know about the problems children can give one. One’s last hope then is that these children will give one grandchildren that one can play with, but that will be the responsibility of one’s children. When one reaches that point, one also has rheumatism, and problems with glands. [Interjections.]

That is why I want to say today there will never be an end to agricultural problems. We must be patient when we discuss the problems of agriculture.

The establishment of the water supply section as a component of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply is a consequence of the Government’s policy in respect of the development of own affairs for each population group.

As regards irrigation, we have approximately 1,1 million ha under irrigation at present, which admittedly is less than 10%of the total amount of cultivable land in this country. This less than 10%is responsible for approximately one third of the country’s production, however. In times of drought this percentage is even greater. In other words, irrigation production stabilises agriculture in this country and should be developed in future.

At the moment we have 335 irrigation boards in this country, of which 255 boards serve White farmers exclusively. These 255 boards have been taken over as such by White own affairs. These boards render certain services. The first is that when new schemes are envisaged—such as those which the hon member for Albany referred to—thorough studies are made and the cost advantage is calculated to ensure that we do not develop non-viable schemes any further, because we already have a few which give us many problems.

In addition it is the responsibility of this department to demarcate new irrigation districts and establish irrigation boards to render technical assistance in the shape of engineering services, for example. Out of a total of approximately 100 Government irrigation schemes, 26 serve White farmers exclusively and are operated by the Department of Water Affairs on an agency basis. The reason for this is that they have the people, and we do not want to duplicate. This department also renders technical and financial assistance in respect of private schemes.

Water is a very scarce and valuable resource and should be used very judiciously. The most effective methods of irrigation should be applied, and the best and most effective irrigation systems should be used.

When we have plenty of water in a specific area where the ground is level, we still recommend that we make use of the conventional flood irrigation methods, because it is a cheap method after all, and also because in most cases and for most climatic conditions and types of soil, it is still a well-proven and inexpensive method. [Interjections.] Where we have less water and uneven sites, we are beginning to irrigate, using sophisticated systems such as centre pivots. [Interjections.] We must issue a warning, however, against the injudicious development of these sophisticated irrigation systems in our country.

Order! There are hon members who are talking too loudly. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

This is a very expensive method, Sir, particularly when irrigation systems are utilised in supplying electricity. The basic problem with these extremely sophisticated systems is that there is no significant difference between these systems and the ordinary conventional flood irrigation method. There is no significant difference in production which could make up for the capital investment made in this expensive system. These systems should be utilised with the greatest circumspection.

When we look at the financial contribution made by this department, we see that during the past three years loans and subsidies to the value of R12,5 million have been granted to irrigation boards for the development of new works and the improvement of existing works. In respect of private schemes, viz subsidies and the development of irrigation systems and waterworks, R8 million was made available. The department also gives a water quota subsidy in the areas in which we cannot provide the normal water supply because of the drought. If, over a period of three years, an area does not receive a quota equal to the full quota for one year, this quota is considered. Certain norms are used to determine income potential in order to calculate the subsidy. Depending on the water available, it is paid on a sliding scale. Since this water quota subsidy was implemented, subsidies of this kind have been granted to eight such areas. This department also performs an exceptional function in respect of drilling. A lot of work is undertaken in this connection and large financial contributions are made by the department. During the past three years, 5 563 bore-holes have been drilled by Government drills and rebates of R5,2 million have been granted. In the same period, private rigs drilled 5 353 holes, on which a rebate of R4,9 million was granted.

This department has also done a great deal in respect of the designated areas, which cover an area of 7,7 million hectares. The Department of Agriculture and Water Supply will continue to develop and strengthen this important component in order to provide greater stability for our irrigation farmers and production in this country.

I want to say a few words to the hon member for Albany. He referred to the development of the Bushmans River. As he quite rightly said, the Bushmans River was quite high on the list of priorities for the Orange River Plan in the beginning. At that stage the idea was that there would be a large development in dairy and milk production in the area. It eventually appeared that this would not be realised and as a result—this was not the only reason, but one of the reasons—that area moved down a little on the list of priorities. The expense involved in the scheme to which the hon member was referring would amount to approximately R30 million for the irrigation of approximately 5 800 hectares.

A whole lot of problems are associated with the scheme. The first is that the viability of the scheme has to be investigated properly. One of the department’s tasks is to ensure that we do not develop schemes which are not viable or where the cost advantage ratio is not a positive one. The scheme will also have to be organised by a board, and will require a subsidy of 33⅓%. It has to be proved that the cost advantage ratio is positive before this subsidy is calculated. Once the subsidy has been paid, there is still the loan for two thirds of the amount which has to be redeemed by such a board. In addition they must remember that the operating costs have to be taken into account, and that normal water tariffs have to be paid in the course of time.

As regards the scheme the hon member has in mind, with the channelling of water from the Orange River into the upper reaches of the Bushmans River, this water has to cover many kilometres, which will lead to great losses for us. Unfortunately the position is such that that irrigation board will have to purchase the water at the supply point, and in this process, up to where the water is to be used, a whole lot of water will be lost. If the water is eventually released into the Bushmans River, balancing reservoirs will have to be built, which will entail further expense.

On a positive note, however, I want to tell the hon member that the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply has decided to appoint a consultant who will investigate the viability of the scheme to which the hon member referred. The Bushmans River pilot committee was informed on 12 August that this investigation would be carried out. Depending on the findings of this consultant and of that committee, the department will take further action.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.