As Chairman I present the First Report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, as follows:

1. (a) Up to and including 23rd sitting day:
   2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.
2. (b) On and after 28th sitting day:
   2.15 p.m. to 7 p.m.

1. (a) Up to and including 14th sitting day:
   2.15 p.m. to 7 p.m.
2. (b) On and after 19th sitting day:
   2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.
   8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.

1. (a) On 6th sitting day:
   2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.
2. (b) On and after 11th sitting day:
   10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m.
   2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.

H. J. Klopper,
Chairman.

Committee Rooms,
House of Assembly,
23rd February, 1973.

Unless notice of objection to the adoption of the Report is given before the commencement of business on Monday, 26th February, 1973, the Report will be considered as adopted.

I want to tell hon. members what the business for the next week will be. The Second Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill will be disposed of on Monday. The Minister of Finance will reply on Monday afternoon when the debate has been concluded. Thereafter the House will proceed to deal with the Bills on the Order Paper from No. 4. On Tuesday we shall take the Third Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill. This will run over to Wednesday, because, as hon. members know, three hours have been set aside for this, plus the Minister’s reply. After disposing of the Third Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill, we shall immediately proceed to deal with the Additional Appropriation Bill. I hope that this can also be disposed of on Wednesday evening, provided, of course, that hon. members adhere to the provisions of the rules.

In the ten minutes at my disposal last night, I pointed out that the hon. member for Durban Point had said that this year was the “Big Brag” of the National Party. I pointed out that this National Party could rightly brag about what it had done in the course of many years. But I also pointed out that there was a stage in this history of that side of the House when they, too, liked to brag. You will remember, Sir, that I mentioned last night that there was a time, a year ago, when many of the hon. members opposite thought it was just a matter of time before they would assume the reins of Government. I referred to the fact that I took a delight in the newspaper cuttings which I read with pleasure, and I should like to refer very briefly to a few of these cuttings. I do so because I should like those hon. members to be able to take new delight in that time when they walked around like cats with arched tails. Yesterday evening I read to you the statement in the Sunday Times of 6th February last year, maintaining, inter alia, that this Government was a bankrupt party. The statement went on to say—

Sir, I read to you from the Sunday Times 30th January, 1972—

The Sunday Times went on to give hon. members opposite the following piece of sound advice—

That was the advice of the Sunday Times to the United Party at that time, that glorious time of the United Party. I read in the Sunday Times last year—

Let me say this: I believe that to be Prime Minister of South Africa, no matter who that person may be, is a major and gigantic task, and in the nature of things I believe that the heavy load which he carries becomes unbearable to him at times, but I also believe that if a Prime Minister, a chief leader of a party, is able to look back and know that he may carry on in the knowledge that no one is standing behind him to stab him in the back, it must give him strength. I believe that for any Prime Minister and chief leader it is an incentive to know that he may look back in the knowledge that every hon. member on his side of the House stands four-square behind him. But more than that I believe that it must give a chief leader and Prime Minister strength to know that every Nationalist in South Africa stands foursquare behind him. As I say this, I pity the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I say that I believe that whereas I have said this in respect of us on this side of the House, the same cannot be said of the Opposition, because what happened a few weeks ago in the no-confidence debate? While the United Party Press was proclaiming the Opposition as victors, while the Sunday Times was assisting them by word and deed, we witnessed a debacle in the no-confidence debate which was unprecedented in the history of this House.

We do not listen to the Sunday Times.

And now that same Press has dropped the United Party. The Sunday Times says—

The Sunday Times weeps and says that things just cannot go on like this with the United Party.

Do you believe the Sunday Times?

I can understand the English Press that tried to puff up the United Party, that whipped the horse, being bitterly disappointed in the performance of that side of the House. I think they know by this time that they are flogging a dead horse: the horse has died. I want to indicate what the trouble with the United Party is. I have watched them carefully. I believe there is great tension in the ranks of the United Party. I say that the greatest tension exists in the ranks of hon. members opposite. After all, it cannot be otherwise. Surely the views of hon. members who constitute the United Party, differ greatly. I am convinced that the views of a person like the hon. member for Hillbrow cannot possibly accord with those of my good friend, Uncle Bronkie. I watched them in the no-confidence debate and honestly, the tension in their ranks was visible to me sitting here. Sweat and anxiety literally broke out on the faces of hon. members opposite when they were dealing with their federation policy, that policy about which the United Party Press are reviling them to such an extent today. Have you ever in your life seen anything like the experience of a man like the hon. member for Durban North, the chairman of a commission with the task of reformulating the United Party’s policy, when the Prime Minister put a few questions to him? I want to read out what he said, as I want to have it placed on record again since the hon. member for Durban Point yesterday bewailed the fact that the hon. member for Durban North was being treated so badly. I just want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point this: The hon. member for Durban North did not receive that bad treatment from the hands of this side of the House—he received it from the hands of his own Press. But what did the hon. member say? The hon. member reconfirmed on two occasions that theirs was not a new policy. I am going to read this to you in brief. I quote from Hansard (col. 295)—

Then he proceeded—I do not want to read it all. I quote again—

This is recorded very clearly in Hansard. He went on—

Then the Prime Minister said—

Thus the hon. member for Durban North. Sir, is it not scandalous that after the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—I address him with respect and deference—had stood up in the no-confidence debate and had formulated the so-called federation policy of the United Party very clearly and had said that it was a new policy, that the hon. member for Durban North, the chairman, should then say that it was not a new policy. The trouble with the United Party is that they blow hot and cold. The United Party has one story for the urban constituencies and then again another story for the rural areas. After all, it cannot be otherwise, because within the ranks of the United Party there are leftists and rightists. I turn again to the address of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to tell him—and may he mark my words today—that there is a faction on that side of the House who want his head on a platter. They are going to do to the hon. the Leader what they did to the hon. member for Yeoville in the Transvaal. Unfortunately the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not here. He is at present the crown prince of the United Party. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is being praised to the skies and puffed up by the United Party Press as the so-called big man.

May I put a question?

I am sorry; my time is very limited. Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout came along and made a speech in this House which I can only term extremely shocking. I have said before in this House and I say it again today, because to me this is a serious matter, that the United Party may criticize this side of the House, in and out of season. That is their task; they must do it. But I say that South Africa will never forgive the United Party if in their political opportunism they say things in this House to harm South Africa. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a speech in this House which, as I have rightly said, was shocking. I want to read just a few lines to you, Sir. He said—

He said that with regard to the Coloureds. Hear now what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is the so-called future leader of the United Party, said—

I say these are shocking things that were said by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Since we are dealing with this speech by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and since the hon. member for Umlazi is having such a loud discussion over there, I want to ask him whether he agrees with the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

Yes.

He says “Yes”. I want to ask each hon. member whether he agrees with this speech. [Interjections.] Fine, we have made reasonable progress. I challenge the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to hold joint meetings with me. We shall chase him from platform to platform. I want to ask the hon. member for Umlazi, or any other hon. member opposite, whether he is prepared to go back to his constituency and tell that constituency that it is the policy of the United Party not to have separate entrances to their post offices. The hon. member must answer now. I ask the hon. member for Umlazi whether he will go back to his constituency and say—and I repeat this—that there should not be separate entrances to their post offices?

May I put a question to you?

Answer, man!

I am very pleased to hear from hon. members opposite that they are in full agreement with what was said by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I want to give them the assurance that we shall go from platform to platform with this speech. I have meetings next week and in subsequent weeks in the Free State. I shall say in the Free State that the United Party, and to be specific, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, calls the Immorality Act the pettiest of petty apartheid. I am going to say that the Mixed Marriages Act is called the pettiest of petty apartheid. I am going to say that the United Party stands for the principle that our post offices in South Africa should not have separate entrances.

Perfectly verkramp, are you not?

My time has virtually expired, but I still want to say this to the United Party, and that is that I believe that this party with its ambiguity, with its various factions, is a party which will fade into nothingness. It shall be my task, and it will be the task of every hon. member on this side of the House, and it will be South Africa’s task to strive single-mindedly after ensuring that a rotten Opposition such as this one would never govern South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, when one listens to the speech of the hon. member for Welkom, the hon. member who has just sat down, one cannot help being regretful that the Government is delaying the introduction of television for so long. I would have loved to have seen that hon. member perform on television. I know what he would have meant in votes for the United Party after a speech of this kind. The lack of television is something which hits us in other ways in this country, because whereas in other countries of the world politicians in times of dispute can appear on television and state their points of view and get the facts before the public, we in South Africa have not even the use of the radio as individuals and we have therefore to rely on the Press to present points of view.

Our difficulty with the Press here in South Africa is that a large part of it is controlled eitherly directly or indirectly by the Nationalist Party hierarchy. The other portion of the Press is independent and entitled to its own points of view. As a result of that we tend to find three types of representatives in the Press Gallery in Parliament. First are those who are seeking to report the truth of what is going on here, since there is no television and it cannot be conveyed that way. To those who are seeking to report the truth, we are very grateful indeed. Then there is a second group that reports news and slants it in the interests of the party which it supports.

Who are they?

We know them; we have lived with them over the years—the Nationalist Party-supporting

Press. Then there is a third group developing in the Press Gallery at the present time and it consists of correspondents whose object is not to report news, but to create news and to confuse comments and opinions with facts.

Name them.

These are the people who want to shape life in South Africa; they want to make and break parties without accepting any responsibility themselves. Some of them serve editors who, with an eye on profits, believe that sensationalism is more rewarding than responsibility.

The Sunday Times!

These people are getting frightened at the turn of events in South Africa under this Government. Having no experience of politics, save perhaps as unsuccessful candidates, and having no acceptable solutions of their own, they hope that by breaking down the existing order and with it the official Opposition, the United Party, by trading on the misplaced confidence they have engendered amongst the public because of friendship in the past, they hope like immature students that something will arise to save South Africa. I have always accepted the right of newspapers to have their own opinion. I want to say at once that the hostility, rational or otherwise, of some editors will not change my view in that regard. But on one score there must be no misunderstanding: They are not the United Party; they do not select its leader; they have no responsibility for its policy. [Interjections]. I have to account to the people who elected me, and to my caucus and my congress.

To whom are you referring now?

To myself.

No, to which newspapers?

Just a moment. I have a responsibility to those who elected me, to my caucus and to my congress. To their trust I shall remain loyal. I want to say, straight away, that neither the Sunday Times, which was once a good friend of the United Party, nor the Financial Mail, which never was, is going to deter me from this course; nor are my recognized opponents in Keerom Street and Braamfontein or, for that matter, any other newspaper going to do so. I am satisfied that, as things stand, these people are not interpreting the opinion of the public but are trying by devious means to create it and thereby they are playing into the hands of the Nationalist Party. In fact, I want to congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister on his new ally. My hands are clean and they shall remain so.

That is not the reason for my entering this debate …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Leader a question?

I have entered this debate because there are some matters which I want to discuss with the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Leader does not want to reply to a question.

What I want to discuss with the hon. the Prime Minister particularly is the importance of the statement wrung from him during the No-confidence Debate by the hon. member for Durban North. The hon. the Prime Minister was asked what his attitude would be in respect of those areas that would not accept independence for one reason or another. His reply was: “Then things will remain as they are.” That question is no longer academic; it has become real as a result of the attitude of the Leaders of the non-White people in South Africa at the present time. What are those leaders saying? They are saying that they do not have sufficient land to accept independence. They are going further; they are saying that the lack of consolidation, or the method of consolidation, makes the whole plan for independence unreal. Some of them are saying that the lack of strategic ports makes the policy fatal. Some of them are saying that they want to enjoy the fruits of the economy they helped to build in South Africa; they do not want independence. Some of them are saying that the areas given to them are not viable economically. What does all this mean? If these people should turn round and refuse independence, as they are indicating they will on the terms offered by the Government, what is the position of this Government and the hon. Prime Minister? It seems to me that the whole moral basis for his policy is at an end. The moral basis is at an end because through the years he has been saying to these people to accept restrictions, to accept discrimination here in South Africa, because when independence comes you will have everything in your own areas and you will be treated differently.

Even self-determination.

Yes, even the policy of self-determination becomes a joke as a result of the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister, because what happens? They are not offered self-determination, they are offered independence on the hon. gentleman’s terms or nothing at all, things staying as they are. They are offered independence on inferior conditions in non-viable states, with the major part of their population out of the area, of remain in the Republic of South Africa under conditions no self-respecting person can accept. I said before, and I say it again, the policy now becomes a policy of confrontation, a policy of revolution and not a policy of evolution. The position is aggravated by the inability of this Government to cope with inflationary forces which are spreading like wildfire through South Africa. It is aggravated by the complete inability of the hon. gentleman opposite to take effective steps to narrow the wage gap between European and non-European in South Africa and it is aggravated because of the complete inability to cope with the poverty of the masses and their inadequate plans to counter the effects of the devaluation. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister there is one thing that will not happen if these people do not accept independence. The one thing that will not happen is that the position will remain unchanged as the hon. gentleman seems to think it will. There will be change but the change will not be in the direction which the hon. gentleman envisages. He is faced here with exactly the same dilemma as that with which he is faced in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians. Already he has appointed a commission to investigate the position in regard to the Coloureds and it is to report, inter alia, on their political development in the future. Let me tell him what Mr. Willem van Heerden said yesterday, the chairman of Rapport-uitgewers, and I quote from this morning’s Cape Times:

If the position could remain unchanged, which of course it cannot, but if it could, the sort of federal policy we envisage would fit like a glove for South Africa. There would be no trouble at all, it could all be so easy. These people would have no greater aspirations and we would be able to work with them in peace and amity and the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister would fall into disuse and will be entirely unnecessary with all the friction it has created. There is going to be change and the change is going to come particularly because of two points and both of those points are aggravated by the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister because those are the points where there is friction at the present time. That friction is going to be aggravated as the result of the attitude of the hon. the Prime Minister.

The first concerns those hurtful and unnecessary invasions of human dignity which are often found in what is called petty apartheid. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has spoken about it and many other hon. members have spoken about it. So many Nationalists have told us that they believe themselves …

You are protecting your wickets!

I think the hon. the Prime Minister is run out already; I think he is on his way back to the pavilion.

He is on his way back to Rome.

Yes, there is a vacancy in Rome; perhaps the hon. gentleman has aspirations. Once there he can give us his real views on the policy! [Interjections.] He can tell us what answer he wished he had given when he made that reply to the hon. member for Durban North. And I doubt, Sir, whether it would have the same result, because it would be so dangerous to bring him back again! Sir, many Nationalists have told us that they believe themselves that this separate development will become non-discrimination. They believe that these hurts will disappear when independence comes to the Bantustans.

I have a formidable list before me of the sort of practices which are being applied at the present time. It is a very formidable list indeed. I propose to give the hon. gentleman only a few examples. I want to start by dealing with what was said in the Vaderland in September of last year, a newspaper which no one will describe as a liberal newspaper. It wrote, in a leading article on the pass laws—

I think in no sense is that more applicable than in the way the pass laws are being applied at the present time in South Africa. Something like three thousand people a day are convicted of offences of which no White man can be guilty. Do they think, Sir, that that does not bring the law into disrepute? Do they think that that does not lead to bad feelings between White and non-White in South Africa?

Let me give you another example of these irritating, absurd restrictions which make it difficult for a man who wants work and who happens to be outside a city, to get work in that city. When he has found an employer who wants him, and he wants to take up a vacant position in one of our cities, he frequently has to get the approval of no less than five authorities before he can take up that post. Very often it takes as much as six weeks. Very often the job has been filled by somebody else when he ultimately gets there.

Then, Sir, you have the position of a man who has been living lawfully with his wife in a Bantu township. He dies, and the wife, who has been there all her life, sharing her home with her husband, finds that she and her children are evicted because she has no right to stay there on her own. Do you know, there are other ridiculous provisions. A man who wants to get married can get a girl from a prescribed area anywhere in South Africa, even a thousand miles away, and bring her into the prescribed area in which he lives once they are married. But if she happens not to be in a prescribed area, even if she is 50 or 60 miles away, she cannot come and live with her husband inside the prescribed area in which he is living. This is the sort of thing that is understandable to the Bantu people.

And then, Sir, you get the daily hurtful sort of things, as arose at Duiwelskloof where, on the 50th anniversary of that institution, a distinguished Indian doctor who had been working at the hospital for more than 10 years, could not attend the celebrations for one reason or another. Can you imagine, Sir, what that man feels like? Can you imagine what the people in that institution felt like? We had another case not so long ago at Oudtshoorn. We had the case of a Coloured doctor with a patient whom he brought to the hospital, and who needed an immediate operation. He was well capable of performing it, but he was not allowed to perform it in that hospital because there were no non-White staff, and no other was available. They had to wait for a White doctor to come along, who ultimately performed the operation, but the patient lost her life. Sir, this is the sort of thing that is going on; this is the sort of thing that is causing hurt and unhappiness in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister said once in this House that if any case could be brought to him where apartheid was applied unnecessarily, that is to say, in circumstances where it was not necessary in order to prevent race friction or to retain the identity of groups, then he would see to it that those cases would not recur. I wonder, Sir, whát the hon. the Prime Minister thinks about cases of the kind I have just put before him. I wonder what he thinks of a leading article that appeared in Rapport on the 29th October last year. They dealt with the case of an Indian doctor at Duiwelskloof, and they went on to say …

That is to say, Duiwelskloof and the case in Pretoria—

Then the report goes on to say—

Sir, has the hon. the Prime Minister done anything about this? Has he got anybody looking into incidents of this kind causing so much trouble in order to ensure that this kind of thing will not happen in the future, with all the trouble and difficulties which arise from it? What do we find, Sir? We find this situation. We have been told in the past that when independence came, then, of course, things would be changed. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said at the United Nations that self-development was non-discriminatory. Sir, what is going to happen if these states get independence and their citizens visit South Africa? Are they going to be treated as they are being treated at the present time, or are they going to get the treatment meted out to distinguished visitors from foreign states who are allowed to go to all the areas where Whites go and to enjoy the same facilities, the same hotels and things of that kind? I would like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether it is his policy at the moment that things will change when these areas get independence. We see what happens with Black diplomats here in South Africa. We see the manner in which they are protected against the apartheid laws and the humiliating practices. What is going to happen when the Bantustans are independent and tourists from well-disposed Black states come to visit us in South Africa? Are distinguished visitors from foreign states going to be barred from the Nico Malan Theatre? Sir, we heard what the honourable Ambassador in Rome said about the ban at the Nico Malan Theatre. Are distinguished Black visitors from overseas going to be banned from that theatre? Are they going to have to stand in separate queues at the post offices when they come here? I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

You are now trying to out-Japie Japie Basson.

This is the Government’s policy; let the hon. the Minister answer these questions. Why is it that one of the biggest Nationalist insurance companies in South Africa has taken the apartheid notices off its lifts? The hon. the Prime Minister sits there and the hon. the Minister of Transport tries to help him by interjecting.

And making things worse.

You see, Sir, these are the questions that people are asking themselves today. They are saying, “Well, if independence comes it may be different.” But what is going to happen if they do not want independence? Then, Sir, you are in the same position with these Bantu as you are with the Coloured and Indian communities at the present time. There is no independence for them. Is petty apartheid going to be perpetuated with them for all time? This is a question that one wants answered. Sir, I am afraid that a lot of this is happening because hon. gentlemen opposite want to assert their superiority and their exclusiveness even at the expense of the dignity of other people. Because not one of these things is necessary to retain our separate identities or to avoid race friction. We want an answer from the hon. the Prime Minister. Is he prepared and willing to see bitterness and inter-racial hostility grow in South Africa until resentment becomes hatred and hostility that can lead to violence developing in South Africa? I was interested in reading this morning what Mr. Willem van Heerden said—

Sir, it is not me speaking but Willem van Heerden, chairman of Rapport-uitgewers. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that is the feeling amongst some of his own people. He goes on—

You are out-Japie-ing Japie.

That is not me, Sir; it is not the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, but Mr. Willem van Heerden of Rapport-uitgewers. Do you think he got the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to write his speech for him? Now you can talk about out-Japie-ing Japie. Sir, here we are in this position. When bad feeling is growing, the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government sit still. Nowhere do we hear of the position being investigated in the hope of improving the situation. Members on this side have said that if the hon. gentleman wants to appoint a committee to go into the amelioration of the hurts of petty apartheid we will be only too pleased to try to help. Sir, these people go on in their own way, I almost said in their own lunatic way. What has happened in regard to our sports policy? Here we are in desperate straits in regard to our tour in New Zealand, and look at the contradictions and inconsequential decision we have had in respect of sport. You can send a mixed athletics team overseas but you cannot send a mixed cricket team. You can have a mixed athletic meeting here in South Africa if it is an international one, and even if other nations do not turn up, Blacks can play soccer against Whites and Coloureds against Blacks and Whites, but you cannot have a White cricket team playing cricket against a Black cricket team if they are both South Africans. You can have mixed trials for tennis, but you cannot have mixed trials for cricket. You can bring an English rugby side out here, a Lions side, and they can play against the Coloureds and the Bantu, but the South African Rugby Union is not allowed to pick a team on merit to represent South Africa outside South Africa.

You know, Sir, when you get these ridiculous contradictions, when you get these inconsequential results, then one wonders where South Africa is heading and what the result is going to be. Time and again we have said that in this sphere we have always accepted as the guideline, the overriding theme, that we should respect the right of groups to have their own exclusive amenities but that there should be an area of choice and freedom to share amenities where that is desired between the people concerned. And naturally, because we have a federal philosophy and approach, it is in the nature of things that we oppose the whole dogmatic and bureaucratic apparatus of petty apartheid. We want to see a suitable measure of autonomy for each community in matters which are of direct concern to itself. We want to see provisions for adequate machinery for continuous consultation between the various groups with regard to current and future personal as well as constitutional relations. We accept that what is desired in South Africa is evolution and not revolution. In social and cultural affairs we accept that the various communities have a right to strive to maintain their own identity but separation merely for the sake of separation, which invades the dignity of others, cannot be tolerated. That is why we say the time has come for the Prime Minister and for this Government and for the whole of South Africa to settle down and to examine the situation; because particularly as the result of the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister the other day, which envisages the continuance of the present state of affairs for those Bantu groups that he thought would be asking for independence, this is becoming an infinitely more serious matter.

But it is becoming infinitely more serious in respect also of another community. It is becoming infinitely more serious in respect of the urban Bantu as we know them in South Africa at the present time. I do not speak of the urban Bantu in a blanket way. I realize that there are two types. There are those permanently settled in the urban areas and there are the migrant labourers. Let us look at what this policy is doing for them, because, as the hon. the Prime Minister says, if they will not accept independence things will continue as they are. Then the unfortunate situation which is developing with these people, which we thought might be ended one day, will become more and more serious. I have said in this House many times that the urban Bantu is the flash-point for race conflict in South Africa. This Government regards them “as mense binne ’n volksverband”—people belonging to a nation somewhere. Because they belong to a nation somewhere, it is necessary to alienate their goodwill towards the White people for generations to come? Why is it that because they belong to another nation, they are not allowed home-ownership in the townships in which they live? Why is it that they are not allowed any secure family life? Why is it that they can go nowhere else but to the White areas to earn a living? There is certainly no living for them in the reserves. However, in the place that they work and live, they cannot enjoy the elementary rights of a normal human civilized man. The hon. the Prime Minister spoke once before of the various committees which have been created. Of what help are they? They are established to try to maintain the link between these people who are permanently settled in the urban areas and the Bantu homelands from which they are believed to come but with which they have no links at all any more. All this is done solely to retain this tribal affiliation.

What is the position with the urban Bantu? He lives permanently in the urban Bantu areas, but he has insecurity in so far as his job is concerned, because there are many jobs today which he is allowed to do if there is no White man available. If a White man is available, he loses that job and the White man takes it. He has insecurity. Even if a Coloured or an Indian is available he loses that job in many cases. So, he has insecurity about his job. He has no ownership in that township. He has no stake in the maintenance of law and order. He has no executive or administrative involvement on behalf of his own people. He gets no adequate training for a job because there are no training facilities available in the Bantu townships. Training facilities are available in the homelands or sometimes in border industries. Seldom does he get adequate schooling for his children after the primary stage, because secondary schooling is reserved for the homelands.

What does he find at the end of his life? Does he have any security? Can he stay where he has worked all his life—in the Bantu township in which he was born? No, this Government is trying to force him out. They are trying to force him to a resettlement camp. They are trying to force him to go to a homeland somewhere to start life all over again. Every pressure is put on him to send him back to homelands which they hope may get independence and where he may be one of the first to be hostile to South Africa. Is this the way to keep these people on our side in the difficult times in which we are living? Is this the way to prevent agitation? When one asks oneself these questions, one wonders where this Government is going.

There is a second group of people who live in these Bantu townships, and these are migrant labourers. They come on contract. I know that this migrant labour system has been in operation in many parts of the world for very many years. We have seen it in Europe, in the Common Market, where by agreement amongst the members of the Common Market countries, they have a special charter protecting the interests of migrant labour. We have seen it in the United States of America. We have seen it in Central Africa. We have seen it in West Africa. We have seen it in South Africa. The result is that the advantages and the evils are well known, especially to the churches.

What are those evils? They have no security. They come on contract for a period. They have no proper training. When they finish their period of contract, although they are supposed to be able to come back to the same boss, so often that does not happen for one reason or another. I know how often I have lost good men who went back and wanted to return and something happened, and they never get back to the same boss. We know all the evils of this system, Sir. I need not outline them. They are known to every church in South Africa. Historically, they have been the focus for all the trouble in South Africa. They suffer from a lack of mobility. They cannot negotiate for improved wages. Their wages are low because invariably the employer has to keep more than he needs, because he cannot get replacements on time. What hope have they for advancement? Mr. Speaker, one would think that any Government would like to be busy reducing this group; but do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that it is the policy of this Government to increase the size of that group, not to reduce it? This is something that is condemned in every country in the world. One would have thought that a Government sensitive to the situation would have been busy trying to reduce this group; but no, Sir, this Government is increasing it. It is increasing it, because its policy in respect of our non-European situation has in view contradictory goals. You see, on the one hand they want separate development; on the other hand they want economic growth. On the one hand, what do they ask for? They believe that all should be gathered in their respective homelands, with the Bantu workers temporary sojourners in the White area. On the other hand, they want steady economic growth, more urbanization, more men working in and around the towns. The only good way you could reconcile those two contradictory aims is by migrant labour, the very evil that is at the root of most of our troubles in South Africa. What is happening at the present time?

The economic forces which lead to the development of migrant labour systems in other countries of the world are fading away in South Africa. What brought that man to work here, and what made him want to go home when his contract was over? I think we have to distinguish between two types of men: What they call the “subsistence migrant”, who came to work because he had to earn for his family in the homeland, and what they call the “bicycle migrant”—he came because he wanted to buy a bicycle, or a wife, a gun or something of that sort. When he had earned enough, he was prepared to go back. But now more and more the employer, who was glad to have a big turnover and send them back, because it was cheap labour, is finding that cheap labour is not cheap any more. He wants trained, sophisticated labour. He cannot train the contract labourer. It does not pay, and he cannot keep him long enough. What do you find? The forces which attracted that man back to his homeland are fading away. Why did he go back in the past? He went back because there was security for his old age. That no longer exists. More and more he goes back to the homelands in which there is not only no security for his old age, but where his family themselves cannot make a living unless supported by him from outside. So, the economic forces that would have made this a voluntary operation are now no longer operating. The only way to keep it operating, is to enforce it by law and with police action. That is the whole answer to the increase in prosecutions under the pass laws in South Africa. Year by year the numbers go up. Year by year we have more prosecutions for the simple reason that the economic forces which made this an acceptable system, which would have resulted in this system being introduced in any other country, are being weakened here in South Africa and are no longer applying. The result is that all that is causing this contract migrant labour to continue is the force of law and police action by the Government. Do you realize what we are paying for it, Sir? Do you realize what the effects are in South Africa? I will concede at once that in the case of the subsistence migrant who goes from the homeland to work in the town and sends his money back, his family is better off than if he did not do it. But there is a redistribution of wealth taking place, because since he is no longer there he no longer takes responsibility for as wide a group as he did when he was a breadearner in the reserves himself. More and more there tends to be a redistribution, because the man keeps more for himself as his wants have increased in the urban area where he is living and he is sending back less and less to his wife and children.

But there is a second thing that is happening as a result of this. As a result of this migrant labour system the rural areas are having to finance the urban areas and subsidize them in South Africa. What is happening is that they are subsidizing urban development, because those urban areas do not have to supply permanent housing, permanent amenities, or anything of that nature. An hon. member, lately in Rome, said that you must not make a Bantu township too attractive so that they would not want to go back to the reserves. What has been happening is that the rural areas have been subsidizing urban development because of this policy. That is the very opposite of what the Government desires with its policy, but this is the effect and they do not seem to realize it.

The third thing it is doing in South Africa is that it is creating and making permanent a differential wage structure. It is making permanent a differential wage structure between the man who is permanently in the Bantu township and the man who is a migrant, but more particularly between the Black man who is a migrant and the White man who is not. The result is that, instead of moving towards narrowing the gap which the hon. the Prime Minister states is one of his objectives, the gap will have to widen if this process is allowed to go on and the economic forces which result from it come into play. That is why the Government finds it so hard to narrow the wage gap, because this migrant labour system pulls economically in the other direction. It is the one thing they have never seemed to realize. Let me give an example. The pass laws today operate in favour of the goldmines as against industry. Anyone can get to a goldmine provided he is fit, but to get into industry there are all kinds of restrictions and things to be overcome. The result is that the ratio of the average European wage to the average African wage in industry is five to one; on the mines it is 20 to one. It is a perfect example of the result of differential wages developing because of the operation of this migrant labour system.

Then there is one more point, namely that migrant labour perpetuates poverty. If only I can get this to be accepted and understood by members on the other side of the House. This migrant labour system perpetuates poverty, because it perpetuates a trading in inefficient and incompetent labour whom it does not pay you to train. You cannot keep him long enough to make a capital investment in your labour and in addition you are faced with the cost of turnover, the travelling backwards and forwards. You are faced with the fact that this prevents girls from earning in the family and it prevents what is called the hidden investment in homes and gardens which the man might contribute over the weekend when he is not actually working in his job. Actually it creates unemployment as well because of the red tape at both ends, the man wanting to come and the employer applying for the individual concerned.

I am not going to talk about the other evils, the social evils, the social costs, of this system. These are so great that they are known to everybody. They have been condemned by every church in South Africa. What does all this mean to the employer? Here is your employer and these are the two types of labour available. It means he is faced with uncertainty as to his labour supplies and with an inefficient sort of labour. He has to employ more people than he needs, because of the difficulty of getting replacements. Costs of production are going up. It means that all this is being done because they are afraid to give these people more security and are trying to push development in the direction of border industries where frequently they are uneconomic and cannot compete. You can only protect your border industries by protecting existing industries in South Africa and giving the border industries better conditions as regards pay, wage determinations, leave, transport, taxes and things of that kind. What is the result? At a time like this, the rate of economic development of South Africa has been slowed up, the standard of living of everyone has been kept down artificially—all for a system which is leading to the undermining of the safety in South Africa and which is preventing fast economic growth which is vital for the security of our children in South Africa.

I have dealt many times in this House with the United Party’s alternative and do not think it necessary to deal with it again here this morning. I think what is important is that there should be another approach, that these people should be recognized as an essential part of the national economy, that we accept that they cannot do without us and we cannot do without them and that we regulate, guide and control their integration into that economy. You will realize, Sir, that that is in direct contradiction to Government policy because the Government wants to keep them as temporary sojourners in the White areas. That is one of the reasons why we in the United Party are looking to other solutions. We see difficulties arising in South Africa and we see the policies of this Government accentuating those difficulties.

What is your solution?

That is why we have looked to a federal solution—a federal solution under a new Government, a federal solution in which each group will have a large degree of control over the matters of intimate concern to itself; and in which there will be a liaison between this Parliament and the various groups through the standing statutory committees; and in which there will be a federal assembly in which matters of common concern can be discussed and to which powers can be devolved with the passage of time as confidence grows.

What have been the attacks on this policy? I suggest that those attacks do not hold water at all. The first attack on this policy was to pretend that they did not understand it. Even the Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party understands it today, and that is saying a lot. You can see how his questions have changed in the course of this debate and the No-confidence debate. What have been the criticisms? The criticism has been: You are not clear about what happens to the White Parliament. Let us put that very clearly so that the Chief Whip can understand it.

All things to all men.

The answer to that is quite simple …

You do not have to convince the Chief Whip, but you have to convince the Sunday Times.

The Sunday Times has already been convinced. It is the Chief Whip I have to convince. The Sunday Times does not vote, but the Chief Whip does vote. He is going to vote for me. What is the position now? It seems to me that that hon. member wants to join the party of Joel Mervis. He will most certainly be the only member to do that.

†But what is the position? Let us get this quite clear. It would be folly to transfer too many powers too soon; it would be cynical not to envisage the passing in due course, as confidence develops, of meaningful and important powers to that federal assembly. The very fact that we say that the powers connected with the keys to the safety of the State will not be transferred unless approved by a referendum amongst the Whites, shows the direction of our thinking. There you have it. It is as simple as that. The hon. gentleman wants to know: How are you going to elect the members to that federal assembly? We have told him it will be determined by the contribution of each group to the country generally and to the well-being of the State. We have told him there will be economic considerations. There will be other considerations as well. This is a matter that will be hammered out by negotiation between the groups. What more does he want to know? I remember reading not so long ago one Nationalist political correspondent talking about the uncertainties of Government policy in respect of the Coloured and Indian people. He said—

He will have to find an answer.

What choice have you made, a White Parliament or a federal assembly?

As far as we are concerned, we have made our choice; we stand for our federal policy; we believe the time is coming when this Government will be forced as a result particularly of the admission made by the hon. the Prime Minister, to accept the federal solution as well.

In the first place, Mr. Speaker, it is a very special privilege to me as a newcomer to this dignified House steeped in tradition, to be able to take part in the proceedings of this House and to find myself here in the company of so many respected, devoted and leading members of this House. To me it is a privilege to be able to learn from the maturity and experience of the hon. members of this House and in particular to be able to act before you, Mr. Speaker, and to respect your guidance and admonition. To me it is indeed a special and memorable occasion.

In the second place, I should like to convey the gratitude of my constituency to my predecessor, Senator Van Staden, who gave many years of service.

In the third place, I should like to confine myself to my subject, but I would never have thought I would take the floor after the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. My benchmate said I was to answer, but as I do not have my cuttings available, I shall confine myself to my subject in respect of which I trust I shall gain the support of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, too, and my subject is an evaluation of the system of transfer duties with a view to adjusting it so as to serve as a stimulant to our ever-growing housing needs.

I should like to start at the beginning of this century, in the year 1900, when 35% of all White inhabitants of South Africa lived in the urban complexes. Today the percentage is 85, and by the year 2000 it will be at least 95. The movement of the population from the rural areas to the cities is unstoppable. In addition to this it is anticipated that the White population will double its numbers during the next 27 years, viz. by the year 2000. Apart from that we experience even now that some of the larger urban municipalities have doubled, on the average, their number of inhabitants every ten years over the past two or three decades. If one puts all these factors together, one comes face to face with one major problem, and that is the rapid provision of sufficient housing. It is accepted too readily and too often by too many people that the Government should provide housing and finance housing forthwith, quite wrongly so, because the Government most definitely is not an arbitrary distributor of alms and of subsidies, except in exceptional cases. It is, however, much more important that people should see to their own housing needs.

It is much more important that every person should be encouraged to obtain his house and dwelling unit himself, and, as far as possible, to do so without any financing from the Government, but that all possible aids should be made available for this purpose so as to inspire and encourage all people to realize this ideal and aspiration. One of the biggest obstacles in the way of many potential home owners is and remains the high cost of transfer; not the attorneys’ fees which are reasonable meagre!—hut the exceptionally high transfer duties and the accompanying stamp duties. It is significant that transfer duties were first levied in the province of Holland in 1529 and that this system was adopted by South Africa and was imposed here in 1686 for the first time. It is even more significant to note that most of the developed countries of the world have abolished transfer duties altogether or have abolished in part this ambiguous form of property taxation. Even Rhodesia abolished it altogether ten years ago.

This morning I am not, however, advocating the total abolition of transfer duties and the accompanying stamp duties, particularly not when one has regard to the fact that this source yielded a total revenue of approximately R50 million in the current financial year, which, incidentally, is R30 million more than it was five years ago. For any source of revenue which is abolished on the one hand, one has to find another on the other hand. What I am advocating is in fact a fresh evaluation of our system and method of levying duties in South Africa. I gladly advocate a complete readjustment of the system and the highest degree of relief possible, or as an alternative, a more favourable adjustment of the rebates on transfer duties which were introduced by the Government in 1964, but which apply only to property values not exceeding R15 000. In their time these rebates were a tremendous incentive, and they still are a great help. These rebates provided for a reduction of two-thirds of the transfer duties on property transactions not exceeding R5 000, for a 50% reduction on property transactions of between R5 000 and R10 000, and for a reduction of one-third on property transactions of between R10 000 and R15 000. Inflation, the devaluations which we experienced and the continual rise in prices make it even more difficult today to acquire housing, including the plot, below this present rebate ceiling of R15 000.

The total consumers’ price index on all goods in South Africa has risen by 46% from 1964 up to the present time. It stands to reason that it is extremely difficult to determine the actual rise in respect of plots, the costs of building materials and labour since 1964 up to the present time, but if a projection is made on the basis of the figures of the consumers’ price index, one may estimate conservatively that the then rebate ceiling of R15 000 will probably be equal to at least R22 000 today.

Sir, how much do these transfer duties actually amount to? Let us dwell briefly on two examples. A farmer who buys a farm for R100 000 pays a total transfer fee, that is all inclusive, amounting to R4 850. But what is significant in this regard is that 96% of this amount goes to the Government in the form of transfer duties and accompanying stamp duties. The remaining 4%, after provision has been made for miscellaneous expenses, if anything should still be left, is the meagre wage of the attorney. By the way, Mr. Speaker, perhaps that is one of the important reasons why so many attorneys exchange the practice for Parliament! In the second place we have the case of a man who buys a house for R20 000. He pays transfer fees amounting to a total of R950, and of this amount R817-50 represents transfer duties and stamp duties alone, in other words 86% of the total. On the basis of the usual, inevitable first bond which usually goes hand in hand with the transaction and which is usually registered at the same time as the deed of transfer, another R150 is added, on which, incidentally, stamp duties are also levied on a smaller percentage basis, and that amount of R150 added to the amount of R950, gives us a total of R1 100.

Sir, this potential home-owner must lay out R1 100 before he has paid off one cent on the purchase price of his property. Today this is a gigantic struggle for many people, even an impossible task, to acquire the usual 10% or 20% deposit on the purchase price. Many people can in fact afford high monthly instalments, but few people can discipline themselves to save a relatively large amount in order to use it for this necessity. The additional cash required for transfer duties and stamp duties, often renders this impossible. People can either buy nothing, or resort to malpractices, or methods of evasion are created in an attempt to overcome these obstacles.

†These popular methods of evasion usually give rise to actions with a detrimental effect, such as the following: Firstly, the addition to the purchase price, often an inflated purchase price, of the transfer costs, together with a substantial amount of capitalized interest, whereafter payment of transfer costs is effected by the seller but whereafter, unfortunately, the purchaser is penalized with a burden of a substantially increased purchase price and accordingly substantially increased monthly repayments on his bond; and at the same time, Sir, the seller also runs a very high risk because quite often he may find himself in the position that he has to retransfer and once again pay transfer duty on this property in the event of the purchaser committing a breach of contract under the terms of his first or second bond in favour of the seller. The purchaser is particularly vulnerable in these cases, as he usually carries a heavy mortgage liability, very often varying between 90% and 100% of the purchase price. Secondly, Sir, more and more transfers are being effected in the name of companies, with a subsequent change of ownership by way of share transfer, thus evading payment of transfer duty entirely. Surely this is a practice which should not be encouraged, especially not in the case of residential properties.

Not many purchasers, Sir, are keen on being burdened with the necessity of complying with company law requirements. They are reluctantly compelled to do so, since it is the lesser of two evils when a choice has to be made between the payment of excessive transfer duty and stamp duty and, on the other hand, taking transfer by way of shares. Thirdly, there are unfortunately instances of false affidavits disclosing inaccurate property values. I fully realize that these evils cannot be efficiently avoided or overcome, but I candidly believe that these evils could be effectively reduced. I wish to plead fervently, Sir, for the complete revision of the transfer duty tariff, and particularly for a sympathetic and favourable concession to all purchasers of immovable property required for farming and residential purposes, irrespective of whether the purchaser intends occupying this property personally or whether occupation will be taken by a third party or by a nominated party or by a tenant. I feel that preferably, on account of certain technicalities, such concession should also be without the present requirement or stipulation of a maximum property value ceiling as qualification for the rebate. Without the present stipulation, the development of the unimproved property, in other words the vacant plot, should take place within a reasonable period, which reasonable period is being interpreted by the Receiver of Revenue as a two-year period in order to qualify for rebates. The young purchaser who realizes that he first has to pay for his plot, which can often take many years, and that he can only commence development thereafter, has to take a very difficult decision; either he signs an affidavit as required by the Receiver of Revenue to the effect that he intends building and occupying within a two-year period, in which case he would qualify for his rebate and there would be a saving of R100 to R150, or otherwise he decides to be honest, not to make the affidavit and to pay a penalty of R100 to R150, as the case may be, for his honesty. Sir, this is a very difficult decision indeed for a poor man. Why should a young man who has the determination to buy a plot of land and to attend conscientiously to the payment of regular monthly instalments, be penalized because he cannot pay sufficient money in the shortest possible period, namely within the prescribed period of two years? This man should not be penalized. This man should be respected. He should be praised and encouraged. I fully realize that criticism could quite rightly be directed against the obvious or the undisclosed speculator who enters into a property transaction for profit. It can quite easily be argued that this man should pay transfer duty at a higher tariff. There is, however, some justification for the argument that also the speculator is performing a very important task, namely the provision of much-needed accommodation. On the other hand, should this really create a serious problem, the obvious remedy would be a penalty transfer duty levied on all sellers selling within a prescribed period, plus the fact that the Receiver of Revenue, in the case of a professional speculator, would also take his fair share of income tax.

*I believe, Mr. Speaker, that a favourable readjustment of our present policy of transfer duties and stamp duties will be nothing but a gigantic step in the right direction in that it must inevitably lead to the active encouragement of individual home ownership; in that it will inevitably serve as an additional injection in the present condition of semi-stagnation in the building industry; in that it will make a substantial contribution to the realization of the ideal of a more rapid development of the very large number of vacant plots in the larger urban complexes of our country. In the Greater Cape Peninsula alone there are 50 000 open plots. During the past few years an average of only 4% of these plots were developed per year. Moreover, this ought to lead to only a limited reduction in revenue for the Government, because of the bigger anticipated turnover, because of increased growth and, in particular, because of the fact that substantially more transfers may be expected as a result of the transfer of dwelling units or flats in terms of the recent Sectional Titles Act, and especially if a favourably adjusted system could be established which could encourage property buyers preferably to take transfer instead of buying by way of share transactions.

Finally, I believe that the favourable readjustment of our policy of transfer duties and stamp duties could be one of the biggest single contributory factors to, in the first place, encouraging a pride of ownership and thrift in the individual: in the second place, cultivating in the individual, in the midst of constantly rising prices and inflation, an awareness of the security value and resistance of property to the consuming money erosion; and finally, and in particular, in that it could encourage and enable a substantially larger number of people to own a home of their own, which is the individual’s duty towards himself and his family and the State, and not the duty of the State towards the individual, except in so far as aids are concerned, such as this aid which I am advocating so anxiously today.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for Malmesbury on his maiden speech in this House. One can see that he has made a thorough study of his subject and that he has a sound knowledge of the business of an estate agent. To me the fact that he, as well as the two new members who spoke before him, saw it fit to use both official languages in the maiden speeches they delivered here, is something important and something I appreciate very much. I hope it will not be long before we shall see the day when each new member who comes to this House, will be able to do this in the manner in which these three members did it during the past few days.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30(2).

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express the gratitude of my colleagues and myself for this opportunity to move—

We in South Africa are in the exceptionally fortunate position of having several key industries at our disposal. We think, for example, of the gold-mining industry of South Africa, the steel industry, the oil-from-coal and various other industries. However, when one considers these key industries of South Africa, there is one which stands out prominently over the others, one which not only stands out but in addition catches one’s eye because it glitters like a sparkling diamond with different facets. One can turn this agricultural industry of ours to any angle and find there is always a facet which reflects far and wide and tangibly over the South African national economy. We think of one of its facets, the maize industry, which in normal times is worth R350 million to our country. We think of another facet, the wine-producing industry. This is an industry which has been built up and expanded over centuries here at the Cape by means of hard work, knowledge and skill, into one of the most sophisticated industries in our country. It is an industry which has with its choice products won a name not only for itself but for South Africa far beyond our borders. Another facet of the agricultural industry is the wool industry, which has over many years earned South Africa many millions of rands.

The fact of the matter is, however, that although gold, steel and oil are precious to us, we would be able to get along without these products if we had to. There is one industry which South Africa and its people, and the world and its people, will not be able to do without for one day, and that is the agricultural industry with its agricultural products. According to United Nation reports the world population is at present 380 000 million people. I want to state, without fear of contradiction, that each of these 380 000 million people needs the produce of the farmer every day of his life, for without it he could not survive. If anyone wishes to dispute this statement I ask him to wait until the hunger pangs gnaw at his body, to wait until the biting cold of winter slices through his body and then he will pause to reflect and realize that the farmer, of all people, is mankind’s greatest benefactor and provider throughout the world.

The Americans have established that it costs them 8 000 dollars on foodstuffs alone to feed a baby girl from the day of her birth to her 18th year. It costs 8 900 dollars on foodstuffs to feed a young boy from birth to his 18th year. Another expert asserts with authority that a person who eats and drinks correctly and has the right living habits will with great ease, humanly speaking, attain the age of 70 years. He then divided up these 70 years of man into categories and found that the person who has attained the age of 70 years, has slept for 23 years, worked for 19, played for nine, eaten for six, travelled for six, was confined to bed owing to illness for four, has spent two years dressing and has worshipped for one. If one then scrutinizes this analysis further, one reluctantly arrives at the conclusion that in these categories of man’s span of 70 years, not one day goes by, whatever he is doing, in which he is not subjected to the beneficial effect of the produce of the farmer, to that of the agricultural industry. He has slept for 23 years, and in that time the food in his body has generated energy and strength for the next day’s daily tasks. For nine years he has played. When Dawie De Villiers led his men out on to the international playing fields they wore on their feet boots made from the produce of the South African cattle farmer and jerseys and socks made from the wool of the South African wool farmer. One can in this way consider every period in the life of man, and the farmer’s produce is present there.

This expert calculation that man has worshipped for one year, gave me food for sober reflection. I then thought of the good practice of our Christian people to celebrate the Lord’s Supper every three months. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, in these most profound, most serious moments of man’s existence, when he bows his head and looks deeply into his soul and his spiritual life, when he breaks the bread, it is bread made from the wheat kernels of the grain farmer, and when he pours the wine, it is wine made from the vineyards and the winepress of the Boland wine farmer. For that reason I believe the day will come when mankind will have to pause and say that its greatest benefactor is the farmer. I also hope that the day will come when non-farming people, the public, the consumers, will rid themselves of the often unjustified prejudice against the farmer, and will realize that the farmer is the person responsible for the physical well-being of mankind. There are people who fulfil important tasks in life, and each covers a certain aspect of man. In this way the clergyman is responsible for the spiritual side of man, the medical doctor for his health, and the teacher for his education and further scholastic development. But there is one man, the farmer, who is responsible for the whole of man. Hence I believe that the day will still come, as mankind becomes more numerous and the need for the produce of the farmer greater, that mankind will at some stage pause and say: “A great many monuments have been erected, but why has not a great monument, even if it is only in our thoughts and our minds, ever been erected to the Unknown Farmer who makes provision for the continued existence of man?”

In South Africa we have 90 000 farmers practising their profession on 101 000 farming units, units which in 1969 were valued at R4 887 million. The equipment they used on these units was valued at R674 million. Livestock on these farming units was worth R1 129 million. At the end of 1969 the total value of the South African farmer was R6 690 million.

Recently the South African Agricultural Union made further statistics available in which they maintained authoritatively that the present assets of the South African farmer stood at R7 661 million. What is interesting is that in 1950 the total assets of the South African farmer amounted to R2 900 million. In just over 20 years it has therefore almost trebled. Now, one may with justification ask what the liabilities of the South African Farmer are. I can say the picture is a favourable one. The total liabilities of the South African farmer amount to R1 400 million, or rather 20% of his capital assets. The net income of 90 000 South African farmers last year was something in the region of R600 million.

We are living in a changing world and as times and circumstances change and the demands of the times increase, so the farmer will also have to realize that he will have to keep pace with changing circumstances in a rapidly changing world. He will have to extend and intensify his knowledge of his industry, develop his managerial ability to the utmost, and modernize his methods in a scientific, economic manner. The basis, the foundation of his products should be only the best, then his end product will be attractive, competitive and profitable.

We owe a vote of thanks to our Ministry of Agriculture and its departments for the ever-helping hand which they are only too eager to stretch out to the South African farmer. We think, for example of the extension services, research and financing, the Land Bank, the Agricultural Credit Board, subsidies, drought assistance, subsidies for irrigation, etc. Our department—and I wish our farmers would all realize this—is always there to provide information and guidance. We thank them for that. Our farmers are producing well. We know that after supplying the domestic demand, we are already exporting large quantities of maize, fruit, wine, citrus, sugar, wool, etc. At the moment there is an industry which is developing rapidly, viz. the vegetable industry. We have the seasonal advantage in our favour. With rapid air transport the farmer can pick vegetables on his farm today and within 24 hours it can be for sale on the markets in Europe. There is one industry for which we have a very soft spot and which should be developed to its full potential for the sake of the farmer and for the sake of South Africa and the world, and that is the beef industry in South Africa which, in my opinion, is still in its infancy.

That should not be.

It began to develop since this Government came into power. Since last year I have been advocating in this House that greater quantities of our maize crop should be marketed in the form of red meat. At present something like five million bags of maize are being set aside per annum for cattle. I should like to see from 25 to 35 million bags of maize being offered per annum for the production of red meat. We have these two cornerstones. We have the potential of cattle and we have maize; the one must supplement the other. Our present cattle population totals 8 240 000 head of cattle, of which approximately two million are slaughtered annually. If we were to improve and modernize our farming and feeding methods in the beef industry drastically, we could within a few years raise this figure from two to four million. I think the time is passing when the farmer has to wait for three or four years before marketing his livestock. The turnover is too slow and the risk too great. These cattle can be marketed profitably at the age of ten to 18 months, but then the feeding and breeding methods must be the right ones, and the managerial ability of the farmer of a sufficiently high standard. Many of our farmers are inclined to let cattle which have built up good reserves of meat and fat this summer on good summer veld winter over, only to lose that meat and fat they built up that summer and in the following summer he needs half the period of a good summer to allow his animals to regain the weight of meat and fat which they lost during the winter. If the cattle farmer is unable to prepare his stock for market rapidly, he must send them to the feeder who is. In America 70% of the cattle that are marketed came from the feeding pens; in South Africa only 10%. If we were to follow America’s example in this, I foresee our being self-sufficient in our meat requirements, so that we will no longer need to import red meat from our neighbouring states. More than that, we will be able to export 1 500 000 beef carcasses to the value of R150 to R200 million per annum.

There is one matter which I find a little disturbing, and that is that last year farmers sent 112 411 heifers, 63 667 bulls, 1 067 035 oxen and, please note, 561 945 cows to the abattoirs. Last year approximately 30% of the total number of cattle slaughtered were cows and heifers. I concede that there are barren cows and heifers among these animals, but this figure is nevertheless too high. I do not think it is necessary for us to send more than 15% of cows and heifers to the abattoirs. These heifers and productive cows should be kept and utilized for further beef production. If we did this, we would be able to help contribute a small share towards supplying a great world-wide meat shortage. Last year the United Kingdom imported 436 000 tons of red meat; this is equal to one million large beef carcasses per annum. The United States imported 811 000 tons of red meat, equal to two million beef carcasses per annum. I can continue in this vein. The E.E.C. countries allege that they will have a beef shortage of 500 000 tons this year, which is equal to plus-minus 2½ million head of cattle. The beef consumption in these countries increased as follows between 1966 and 1970: In 1966 it was 1 643 000 tons and in 1970 it was 2 127 000 tons; that is to say an increase in five years of 484 000 tons, which is equal to plus-minus 1¼ million head of cattle. There we have it. The demand for red meat is tremendous. I think that our Government and the South African farmer should be prepared to accept this challenge. The Government will, we know, continue to provide the South African farmer with information and guidance. We are grateful that this Government has already made a start on the improvement of slaughtering facilities. I hope that the department will be able in some way or other to place a damper on the slaughter of heifers and productive cows.

I also want to refer to the marketing of the farmer’s produce overseas. I do not know whether this is still the case, but I know that in the past officials of another department, the Department of Trade and Industries, were responsible for the marketing of farmers’ produce overseas. To my mind this is not correct, and I think it is unfair to expect a man, an official of another department, to have the knowledge of agricultural produce and to place this produce on the world markets to the full benefit of the farmer. I also feel that our Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing should now and in future make some of their best men available to carry out our marketing in foreign countries.

In conclusion, I want to say that over many years our farmers have frequently suffered hardships, and are still at this moment suffering hardships as a result of drought, over-production, poor prices, etc. But I think the tide has turned. I think there are better times in sight for the South African farmer, for as the world population and the population of Africa increases, so the demand will increase. The United Nations states in its statistics that the present number of Bantu in Africa is 354 million, with an increase of 2%, which is equal to seven million per annum. The world population is increasing. As the population increases, available land diminishes. This is unavoidable. As the people become more, the demand for the farmer’s produce will become ever greater. For that reason I want to say today that the South African farmer must hold on to his farm, for I believe there are better times ahead for him. In future the South African farmer will have to help supply the food requirements of the world, for the sake of the world, for the sake of South Africa and for the sake of the South African farmer himself.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Heidelberg has introduced this motion for us, but I, and I think the entire House, expected the hon. member to give us a picture of the future, a picture of how this Government and of how South Africa’s agricultural industry will in course of time be able to make provision for this tremendous increase in population. The hon. member waxed poetical and almost lyrical over the importance of the industry, and I do not wish to differ with the hon. member on that score. I agree 100% with the hon. member in that respect, but the hon. member’s motion mentioned the tremendously sympathetic attitude which we have experienced on the part of the Government over the years in respect of the agricultural industry. I want to test this hypothesis of the hon. member in this motion of his today and see whether it represents the actual situation, for in the first place, if there has been such a tremendously sympathetic attitude on the part of the Government, one would have expected the young people to fall over one another in their eagerness to enter our profession. But what is the actual position? Recently we received a brief résumé from the Department of departmental activities between 1958 and 1972. Let us see what the position there was. Let us now consider our agricultural faculties and the increase in the number of students between 1958 and 1972, i.e. over a period of 14 years. This was now the period of sympathy we received on the part of the Government. If sympathy means anything, it is necessary to do more than merely boast here before us of what amounts are being spent annually on subsidizing maize for example, or the wheat industry, and on subsidizing the consumer in this way. This is general practice throughout the world. What one is looking for are the principles and approach of a Government to create general confidence in an industry. I say that in this case there are irresistible signs that the general confidence in our industry were not such that that hon. member can now say that it was the sympathetic attitude of the Government which brought prosperity and progress to our agricultural industry. Let us consider these figures. One page 43 of this report it is stated that in 1958 there were 1 069 enrolled students. In 1972 1 136 had been enrolled, an increase of 67 agricultural students over that period. In other words, there was nothing more than an approximate 7% improvement over that period of 14 years. This, to my mind, is a test of whether the sympathy shown by the Government has in any way had an effect. Let us, for example, consider the students enrolled at agricultural colleges. It is interesting to note that at Glen, for example, there were 71 enrolled students in 1958. In 1972 there were 65, while they have accommodation for 75. Let us consider Potchefstroom. In 1958 there were 106, and in 1972 still only 106.

How many were there in 1943?

No, wait a minute now. Nothing is said in the hon. member’s motion of what happened before that time. He is now discussing the sympathetic attitude of this Government. If he had wanted to discuss those years, he should have embodied it in his motion. Let us now consider the position in the case of Potchefstroom. As I was saying, there were 106 students in 1958, and at present there are still only 106. At Grootfontein there were 245 students in 1958. There are now 27 students, while there is accommodation for 92, and one of the student hostels there was closed down because there was no increase in the number of students. The total number of agricultural students in 1958 was 573, and in 1972 the total is 442, a decrease of 131. Then the hon. member says he is proud, and thanks the Government for the sympathetic attitude it has displayed to the farmers during the past years. Sir, here he has striking proof that matters did not progress as they should have done if it had in fact been the position that there was a sympathetic attitude on the part of the Government. So I can go on to quote further and indicate what the position is in respect of the increase in our extension officers. The hon. member said in his speech that the demand for red meat was so tremendous and that the Government would do everything in that connection and that it would make more extension services available. Sir, has there been a tremendous improvement over the past 14 years under this Government? That is the test which we apply, and not pious and wise words on the importance of our agricultural industry. I am in complete agreement with the hon. member for Heidelberg on the importance of our agricultural industry. I do not differ with him at all on that score, but what South Africa is seeking today more than ever before is an overall picture of where we are going with our agricultural industry.

I want to take the hon. member’s statements a little further, by referring him to what Mr. De la Harpe de Villiers said. He had the following to say about the unusual and excellent year we had in 1972 (translation)—

Then he said—

Sir, what follows then is interesting—

You have quoted enough now; make your own speech.

The hon. member also quoted figures here. I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to this point which the chairman of the South African Agricultural Union indicated; he said—

Sir, to my mind that is the test—and not to come here and boast of a record year, of the wonderful turnover we had. What is the position of the individual farmer? Sir, it is in that way that one tests the sympathy on the part of the Government; it is in that way that one can test whether or not things are really going well with the farmer of South Africa.

What is the reason for the smaller income of that group?

The simple reason for the reduced income of those people is as follows: Production costs have risen to such an extent, in spite of the increased production, that the farmers’ profits are so small that there is increasingly less confidence in our agricultural industry.

That is nonsense.

The Government does not want to recognize these truths. Over the years we have warned the Government that they should do something to place agricultural financing, for example, on a sound basis. Sir, the farmer is struggling. He is not in the same position as the businessman or the industrialist. He is not always able to add the increased cost, when his production costs increase, to the price of his product immediately; for that reason he is in trouble and for that reason agriculture should in fact receive special attention, and for that reason agricultural financing should not necessarily be viewed on the same basis as the financing of other sectors. That is the reason why the farmers find themselves in difficulties. Sir, we have never reproached this Government when it wanted to give the farmer of South Africa additional financial assistance; we have never stood in its way when it introduced amendments to the Land Bank Act for example; we have never stood in its way when it proposed a change in the agricultural credit system, for we appreciate the need for this. But we are entitled to ask whether the Government has gone far enough in this respect. We feel that we are entitled to move this amendment to the motion of the hon. member because we believe that there is much that is not what it should be in our agricultural industry. I therefore move—

1. (a) food for a rapidly growing population,
2. (b) essential raw materials required by industry, and
3. (c) commodities for export, thereby earning valuable foreign currency,

and accordingly deplores the mismanagement and lack of forward planning on the part of the Government which have to a great extent crippled this industry, resulting in hardships to both the consumer and the producer.”

Now I want to say that in recent years it has become the custom to dismiss criticism which we have expressed in the agricultural sphere as mere talk aimed at talking the agricultural industry away. I expect that we will perhaps have more or less the same thing here today. But to remain quiet about the existence of the problem has not in any way benefited anyone either, and to regard justified criticism as looking for excuses for our industry and for defects in our industry is no longer an acceptable mode of behaviour on the part of that side of the House. Even the present drought, even if it has been broken somewhat now, and we hope that it will soon have been broken completely, even the present drought with its consequences has never brought it home more clearly to us, and brought it home to informed people, how vulnerable our agricultural industry is.

Thank God we have a National Party Government in power.

It also indicates further that the financial situation of the farming community is a very delicate and sensitive one. Sir, I am glad that hon. Whip is now making such an interjection. He said we should be grateful that there is a good National Party Government, but during the past week or so the hon. the Minister had to visit certain districts within a radius of 80 miles from Cape Town. He had to visit those districts to ascertain how dry it is.

That is nonsense.

That hon. Minister and the Minister of Water Affairs have known for the past five years what the situation is. I am not talking nonsense. He knows what the water situation in that area is and that it has been an alarming one for the past five years already, to that hon. gentleman who is sitting there and to anyone in the agricultural industry in the Worcester area. But now for the first time, now that the situation has already developed to the extent where grapevines are dying, now the hon. gentleman and his Deputy Ministers decide to go and see what the situation there looks like. But according to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, they are quite satisfied with the assistance this Government is giving.

He should have sent the Minister as well.

No, you do not know the circumstances.

To point out the good agricultural year we had last season is merely a form of escapism. The tremendous agricultural turn over is no criterion for the financially stable position of the individual farmer. I have already quoted the figures furnished by Mr. De la Harpe de Villiers. The position of the individual farmer remains extremely precarious and for that reason it is once again necessary for us to identify the problems of the farmer in this House, even if it has been done repeatedly. The farmer’s main financial bottlenecks have built up over the years. Here the persistent increases in production costs have left their ineradicable stamp, in spite of the increased productivity and the efficiency of the farmer himself and the fantastic increase in his production volume. But in recent months the farmer’s problems in this respect have proliferated. Last year’s devaluation resulted, in many cases, in increased prices, but now comes the aftermath for the farmers. Now come the increased costs and these overtake, to a large extent, the gains that were made. And, when in addition to this, poor climatic conditions are prevailing, the effect has to be far more, and the risk factor worse. Instead of an optimistic outlook the view the farmers take is becoming more pessimistic, no matter how the figures in regard to better productivity and increased net revenue are juggled. For that reason we on this side maintain that increased productivity in itself is not the solution to making the farmer financially stable. Of greater importance is the dividend which he earns on his labour and capital, and whether his earnings improve annually and can keep pace with an increase in the ever-present cost of living. Then we are not even mentioning an increase in the standard of living, to which the farmer, too, is in reality also entitled. In my humble opinion this is the main problem in our agricultural industry. If we do not make the economy of the agricultural industry sound, if we do not succeed in rectifying our agricultural financing, we can talk until we are blue in the faces about soil conservation, about whether or not the department is doing its duty; this will all be of no avail to us, for herein lies the test. Just as in the case of any other industry there has to be financial encouragement for the person who enters and practices this industry. We will only succeed in doing so if we are prepared, as we have on so many occasions already said, to establish an agricultural planning council for this industry. I see that Prof. Grobler of the University of Potchefstroom recently said more or less the same thing when he expressed the opinion that such a body was absolutely essential.

I can, briefly, mention the advantages of having such a body. As we have through the Industrial Development Corporation made tremendous progress in our manufacturing industry, such a body ought to do precisely the same for our agricultural industry. Only when such a body places the industry on a sound footing and when we take the risk factor into account and improve agricultural financing will our agricultural industry enter a better future, and will we in fact be able to say that we appreciate the Minister’s having sympathy with the farmers of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I heartily want to congratulate the initiator of this motion on the way he introduced it and on the way he described agriculture.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the debate adjourned for the lunch hour. I was congratulating the hon. member for Heidelberg on the motion he moved in so excellent a fashion. It is now also my pleasant task to second the hon. member’s motion. The hon. member for Newton Park moved an amendment in which he rejects this motion. For the rejection of this motion he used in his argument, in customary fashion, certain criteria. We are already used to the fact that the hon. member uses such criteria on occasions such as this when this side of the House wants to express its thanks and appreciation about certain steps the Government has taken to promote agriculture in South Africa. Furthermore, I want to point to the first criterion he used. He paged through the policy document of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, and to imply that the young farmer in South Africa sees no future for agriculture, he quoted from a table of student attendance and student enrolments at our various agricultural colleges. However, if one subjects this table to closer analysis, one comes to the conclusion that things are not as bad as the hon. member whishes to imply. In the first place, for us in South Africa the position is such that the various agricultural colleges are situated in specific production regions. Thus there are Glen in the Free State and Potchefstroom, which must chiefly serve the sowing regions of the high-veld. Then there is also Grootfontein in the Karoo region, chiefly orientated towards training students for the sheep and wool industries. That is what the hon. member uses as a criterion, and then he says there is no future for the farmer. He referred to the position in 1958, when enrolments totalled 245, and then indicated that the figure is now 27. In addition he says that some of the hostels have even closed down because there is no future for the students. I now want to put a question to the hon. member: He is surely as aware as everyone in this House of the great problems the wool industry has been saddled with in recent years. There was the collapse of wool prices and the tremendous droughts that hit the wool farmer. Would the hon. member, as a responsible farmer and a responsible father, at that stage have advised his son to take a sheep and wool course at Grootfontein?

Now he shakes his head; he therefore agrees.

But of course; he is saying “no”, after all.

If one looks at this table, one sees that the decrease in the number of students in that specific college was 218. But let us look at the rest of these colleges. At Elsenburg, near Stellenbosch, there was an increase in the number of students, while the number at Potchefstroom remained fairly constant. It is only logical that interest will vary in accordance with the prospects of the specific branches of the industry.

It has generally been said that we do not know what the position of wool is going to be in the future. We know that the marketing of wool depends chiefly on foreign prices. We do not know either whether artificial fibres are permanently going to pressure wool out of the market. For some or other reason wool prices have increased tremendously in the current year, as have sheep prices. Even slaughtering facilities have improved a great deal.

But the hon. member also used another criterion and then quoted the president of the South African Agricultural Union, i.e. Mr. de la Harpe de Villiers. He says that a percentage of our farmers had tremendous difficulties as the result of cost increases and under inflationistic conditions. I want to agree with the hon. member; that is true. Surely it is then also the duty of the president of the South African Agricultural Union to think of these people. But it is also true that in the past decade there has been great expansion and growth in the agricultural industry. It is also true that there are many farmers in the agricultural industry for whom things are going very well.

If things are going as badly with agriculture as the hon. member alleges, I want to point out to him certain figures made available by the Land Bank. It is interesting to note that land purchases of R31 million in 1967—i.e. the amounts requested—increased to R70 million in 1971. If things are going badly with the farmers, surely no land transactions would take place. Or rather, there would not be an increase in land transactions. However, the requests for such loans are still growing.

But if, in the light of this motion, one wants to judge the contribution and sympathetic attitude of this Government, there are two questions one must ask oneself in wanting to support this motion. The first is whether agriculture has succeeded in its primary function, i.e. the provision of food and raw materials, or not. Has agriculture supplied sufficient food? Was it freely available? In the second place, could the people of South Africa afford the food that was, in fact, provided? Was it within their means of payment? It can irrefutably be proved that the physical volume of agricultural products increased in recent years. Index figures indicate to us that, notwithstanding the drought, there was an increase in the physical volume of agricultural products of about 5% per year. In some years it was as high as 7,8%. In contrast, our total population increased by a little more than 2%. From this it is evident that more was produced than for mere local needs. We therefore had large surpluses available to export, which made agriculture a large earner of foreign currency.

But to the second question, the conclusive reply is definitely “yes”, because we in South Africa probably produce the cheapest food in the world. All of us, who have had the privilege of travelling the world, i.e. through the countries of Western Europe and even through the Americas, will agree with this statement.

Another question is whether this is a good achievement in the light of the fact that South Africa is not a particularly good agricultural country. Only about 10% of our total surface area is cultivable. With a view to this, this is an even greater achievement. It could only have been done by the sympathetic assistance and help of the Government. In the 25 years of this Government’s rule it has never been necessary to announce one statutory meatless day per week, as in the days of the United Party men. It has never been necessary for us to place restrictions on the quantity of bread our people eat. They could get as much white bread, brown bread or hop-bread as they wanted. But what is important is that the consumption of food products has increased tremendously since 1948. I do not want to allege now that people went hungry in United Party times, but according to the figures they definitely did not get enough food, at least not as much as they wanted.

Below the breadline.

In 1948 the consumption per year per head in South Africa was 937 pounds. In 1971 the consumption increased to 1 105 pounds per year. But that is not all. The quality of the food that has been provided over this period has improved. The consumption of animal proteins has increased from 30 grams to 33 grams per day. Calorie consumption has increased by 20%, i.e. from 2 500 to 3 000 calories per day. The general protein quality has increased from 72 grams to 88 grams per day. I think the hon. member said that food is a very important basic product of a people. To provide sufficient food and food of a good quality to the people means, therefore, that one is making a very large contribution, perhaps the largest single contribution, to the promotion of the physical health of the people. But if one looks at the figures from our Budgets in recent years, these facts evidence themselves in every respect. As a result of the tremendous drought, the Government has always supplied this necessary transitional credit to the agricultural sector. Since the establishment of the new Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, from the end of 1966 up to and including 1971, the total amount spent on consolidation and the purchasing of land—these are mostly the people, as you know, who have problems in agriculture, the people the hon. member is concerned about—was R109 million. But in looking at auxiliary steps taken by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, we specifically remember the year in which this Government was prepared to vote R8½ million to support the wool industry in South Africa. In that single year the total amount under this department alone was more than R10 million. Last year, from the Revenue Account alone, R160 million was spent on agriculture. It is essential that in our financing we ensure that sufficient transitional credit is supplied when agriculture is experiencing problems. It is also essential that sufficient price stabilizing funds are available. The consumer and the industrialist in South Africa must listen to this: The largest percentage of money voted by this Government for price stabilization, goes to the consumer for consumer subsidies. In a matter of ten years it has amounted to about R402 million—the end of 1971.

But our Department of Agricultural Technical Services also has a very important function in the stabilizing of our agricultural industry in South Africa. With the research work and extension service it carries out in this connection, it is only necessary for a progressive farmer to pick up the telephone, call his extension officer and tell him of this or that technical problem, ask him whether they can assist him and provide the services. It is all there; all that remains is to go and fetch it.

This motion states, in addition, that we shall have to provide, to an increasing extent, for the demand for food production in South Africa. If we take a look at our researchers, our scientists in this country, we see we have come far in this respect. I am thinking, for example, of the development of seed and hybrid seed. Only last year, as a result of the development of better seed, we succeeded for the first time, with our greater yield, in producing sufficient wheat in South Africa, to such an extent that we could export some of it. With the scientific knowledge we have, with the research and extension work that is being done, we shall definitely be able to supply South Africa’s food needs even in the year 1980.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bethal who has just resumed his seat, has said that in the days of the United Party food was not as plentiful as it is today.

He has not really said that.

He said that. I just want to remind the hon. member for Bethal that in those days the United Party had been engaged in a five years’ war defending the integrity of South Africa. The whole economy of the country had been involved in that war, so if there were food shortages, which I do not believe, there must have been a very good reason for it. Obviously you could not buy white bread. I therefore think his argument is quite groundless. With the vast supplies of food we have in South Africa, right at this very moment our biggest industry and one of our most profitable industries, the meat industry, is importing meat.

After 25 years of Nationalist Government.

We are importing meat for no other reason than that this Government did not plan the meat industry properly.

You know that is untrue.

Order! The hon. member cannot say that. He must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

That is why we have moved an amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Heidelberg, because we in the United Party are not interested in sympathy assistance to the farming industry. We want a well-planned and rationalized agricultural industry where it is not necessary for the department to come along with subsidies. I believe the United Party when in power will see to it that the agriculture is so well-planned that the question of subsidizing this industry will become something of the past. That is why we say in our amendment that we deplore the mismanagement and why we appeal for forward planning, because we believe that if that is done this question of sympathy assistance mentioned in the hon. member’s motion will fall away.

The hon. member for Bethal talks freely of a plentiful supply of foodstuffs to feed our population, but I want to ask him at what price. And as one who lives in a city and has to fork out and pay the price I am alarmed to see how the price of food is going up in South Africa. If it continues to go up at the rate it is going up at present, there will be a rise in the price of foodstuff of something in the region of 30%. I believe that if we properly plan this great industry, the agricultural industry, and if this Government will only sometimes take the advice of this Opposition, there would not be this need for the rising price of food. We in the Opposition are deeply concerned about the price which the ordinary man in the street today has to pay for the ordinary foodstuffs he requires to keep his family together. This is something that must enjoy the attention of this hon. Minister. The rise in price of 30% in one year is something the consuming public cannot really bear.

Which year was that?

If the hon. the Minister will just project the figures, he can work it out. At the present time it is rising at the rate of 2½% per month. If you multiply that by 12, you will see how much that is per year. That is why we say, and have said time and again in every agricultural debate, that it is high time this hon. Minister paid serious attention to introducing of an agricultural planning council. A vast industry like this has to be planned and co-ordinated. It has to be better planned and better co-ordinated than has been done during the last 25 years.

The hon. member for Heidelberg spoke about the exportation of meat. He speaks of exporting meat when at the present time the pastoral industry cannot supply South Africa with its needs. Before he can speak about exporting meat, he has to rectify the situation so that he can supply his own local population without having to import it from Australia and New Zealand. That is what has to happen. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what his department has done to activate the production of red meat in South Africa. Why has he not given serious consideration to establishing a floor price for meat at a realistic level that would encourage the producer to produce more red meat? I want to ask him why he has not fixed the floor price for red meat at a figure at which the Meat Board could buy and export it overseas at a profit if a surplus developed. If he were to do that, there would be hundreds of farmers—and I believe that the hon. member for Heidelberg is one of them—who would increase their industry tenfold, because at the floor price I am suggesting there would be a profit for them. But that is not the position. We are left in an uncertain position because we do not know what the price of beef will be tomorrow, next month or next year. Many farmers in the industry are reticent to put their capital into it to increase their production.

The hon. member for Heidelberg made a very good suggestion, in which I want to support him. With regard to the use of maize, one of our most important crops, he said that the throughput of animal feed is only approximately six million bags per annum. He suggested that that should be stepped up to 25 million bags per annum. His idea was that, if this was fed to livestock, to sheep and cattle, we would catch up with the backlog we have in our meat supply. I believe that the hon. member has a very good point, but then we on this side of the House have been making this very suggestion for the last five or six years. We wanted to know why it should be that we should export our maize at a loss each year while it is urgently needed to supplement the rations of our livestock industry. But nothing has happened. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether they are contemplating doing just that. I do not believe that it is beyond the realms of possibility; I cannot accept that a plan cannot be worked out whereby the surplus maize we produce in South Africa can be directed to supplement the rations of our livestock industry. I believe it is a perfectly feasible proposition and I support the hon. member for Heidelberg in this respect.

Talking of the meat industry, the hon. member in his motion praises the department for all it has done for agriculture. Why has it taken ten long years to get anything done in respect of our abattoir situation? For ten long years the Government and the department have been humming and hawing and only now does it appear that the abattoir position is being brought to a proper functional situation. There must be many hon. members in this House who are consumers of red meat. I wonder if they realize that, as a result of the obsolete meat plan which the Government was implementing, it was not possible for me to provide a local butcher with so many steers per month, per week or per annum, as the case may be. It had to go the long way round through the abattoirs and auction on the hook. All this was increasing the price to the consumer all the time. Only now are they beginning to realize what must be done to place the producer in a position to supply direct to the butcher and thence direct to the consumers in the big cities. It has taken them ten long years.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

All right; if it is not too difficult!

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I understood the hon. member: Is the hon. member suggesting that we must abolish auction on the hook? Is that what intends?

No, I am not asking for the abolition of the system of auction on the hook, but I would say that at least 25% of the supplies should be able to get to the consumer without having to go through the expensive process of auction on the hook. That is what I am pleading for. I believe we are getting to that point, but it has taken ten long years because the industry was not properly planned. That is my point.

I now want to come to another point which is also connected with planning. If the hon. the Minister will recall, about three years ago in this House I raised the question of the damage which the harvester termite was doing in our pastures in South Africa. I think the hon. the Minister was sympathetic to my plea in this respect. He sent the information from the department, bringing me up to date with the latest appreciation of this problem by the department, and in one of these letters from the department about the harvester termite I was told what I will read to other hon. members shortly. When I talk of the harvester termite, I am sure hon. members know what a problem this little parasite is in South Africa. The other day, while playing cricket at Stellenbosch University, I was fielding at fine leg—I do not know whether the hon. the Minister knows where that is—and there where I stood were these harvester termites destroying the grass on the fields of Stellenbosch University. This harvester termite is distributed throughout the length and the breadth of South Africa and it is doing, in my opinion, far more harm than the locust parasite has ever done in South Africa. I warned the hon. the Minister at that time and he sent me these letters. The departmental letters I received said the following—

At that time I told the hon. the Minister that an ecological approach was not sufficient to control this parasite and that his department should look closely into this matter to see whether it was not necessary to launch a national scheme to control this parasite in the country. Nothing has happened, but here in one of the agricultural papers another warning comes from the private sector, emphasizing the tremendous damage this parasite is doing; and the damage is getting greater and greater every year. Up to this stage I do not believe the department has taken anything like the action that should be taken to get this plague under control. Do hon. members see why I am concerned? I am concerned because this hon. Government has just recently spent millions of rands on the stock reduction scheme. I hope that the hon. the Minister will tell us about the stock reduction scheme and whether they are going to abandon this scheme, which is probably the best long-term bit of planning that they have been involved in. However, millions of rands are being spent on the stock reduction scheme and now I ask hon. members: Is it wise utilization of the taxpayers’ money to pay the farmer to take stock off his pastoral land so that these termites can destroy it? It is a fact, and the net result of this lack of planning, this lack of co-ordination which we find so rife in the department, means that if there is less veld for the stock to eat, there will be less meat available to the consumer. If there is less meat available to the consumer, what is the net result? The net result is that the price for the consumer goes up. I believe it is a matter of very, very vital importance that this hon. Minister and his Deputy see to it not only that we have adequate supplies of food for the nation—that is one of his primary roles—but also that there are adequate supplies at prices which the average person in the street can afford to pay. I am very concerned that the price of ordinary agricultural produce is getting out of hand, that it is reaching a point where the ordinary man in the street can ill afford to pay those prices. That is the reason, Sir, why my hon. friend, the hon. member for Newton Park, has said that the time has come when we must have an agricultural planning council to deal with all these problems. I have a very high regard for the Minister of Agriculture, but I believe that the problems are so manifold and so difficult of solution that he cannot possibly be expected to cope with them on his own. I think he needs the advice of such a council, and I hope that in his term of office he will see that such a planning council is introduced and that he will shed the mantle of ad hoc-ism which he inherited when he became Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very appropriate in this debate, which is an agricultural debate, to convey the congratulations of all South African agriculturalists to our friend. Dr. Verbeeck, on the particularly distinguished award he received last week from the French Government. I think he gained a great deal of renown for himself by that award, but in general he gained a great deal of renown for agriculture in South Africa and for our country as a whole in particular.

Sir, I gladly support this motion of the hon. member for Heidelberg. I find it strange that when one is dealing with a positive motion such as this, where an opportunity is being created for a positive discussion of agriculture and its future, one always obtains a destructive type of discussion from the United Party. I want to concede at once that my good friend, the hon. member for Walmer, was perhaps not quite so destructive. I think he came along here with a few fine, positive suggestions. But, Sir, if the agriculturalists of South Africa are to pay heed to the hon. member for Newton Park, I tell you agriculture will perish. I want to declare here today, unequivocally, that the young South African farmer will not allow the United Party men to talk him out of agriculture. But we know what the reason is. The United Party men have no future on the platteland, and therefore they speak about the “deep” platteland. They have no future on the platteland, and the quicker they can talk agriculture down, the quicker the agricultural sector, which does not support them, will have perished. Sir, we shall continue to propagate the interests of agriculture positively in this House and outside, and we have all the means at our disposal, because I want to submit that we have two sympathetic Ministers and a sympathetic department.

Sir, I want to leave the United Party men there. I do not want to speak about them any further. I have much more important matters I should like to state here today. I am sorry, Sir, that I shall have to cross swords with our good friends, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. But in November last year an article appeared in the Volkshandel “The State’s Priorities in Assistance to Industry, Mining and Agriculture”. In the article they speak of “our standpoint”. I say that I regret having to cross swords with them, but I think this motion fits in very beautifully with what I want to say about this article. I find it appropriate to refer to a few aspects mentioned in this article. The article compares, for example, State assistance to agriculture and industry, income tax, contributions to national revenue, contributions to exports and the supply of employment, and then it continues by stating that the assistance the State is granting to agriculture, in comparison with the assistance to industry and others, is out of all proportion. But let us look at the reality of the situation. In the Financial Mail of October, 1972, it is stated that to the extent that butter, wheat and mutton can be imported at a price cheaper than local prices, the consumer is subsidizing the farmers. If that is so, then even the artificial fertilizer subsidy is not a subsidy to the farmer, but a subsidy to the artificial fertilizer industry, because last year the farmers could import artificial fertilizer at a price cheaper than the locally manufactured product.

But let us go further. At present we are exporting maize at R5-50 per bag delivered at the harbours, while the inland price to the millers and the consumers is about R3-80 per bag. If we were to have imported maize this year, the difference would have been about R2 per bag, and on the local consumption of about 55 million bags we would have had to pay a good R100 million or more, which means that the State subsidy for maize would have had to quadruple in order to keep the price the same. According to definition then, the maize farmer subsidizes the consumer by R100 million, apart from the Government’s subsidy. I want to declare unequivocally that apart from a few select products, the price of food in this country is still the cheapest in the world. The rough estimate is that if all food were to have been imported last year, it would have cost the country, together with State subsidies, in the region of R300 million. This article continues and mentions artificial fertilizer subsidies, excise rebates, the Department of Agriculture, the livestock reduction scheme and soil conservation, losses of the Railways, etc. But let us just analyze these statements. Agricultural technical services has a budget of R47 million, the largest portion of which is for agricultural research and training. In the case of industry, research is done by the C.S.I.R., which in any case has a much larger budget than the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Is it therefore fair for us to evaluate the faculties of agriculture, which were linked up to Agricultural Technical Services, as direct assistance to the farmer, while the faculties of commerce at our universities are under a quite separate budget?

But I go further. If we must consequently accept this as a norm, the three agricultural departments being included as direct assistance to the farmer, must we then regard the Departments of Industries and partly the Departments of Labour, Immigration and Community Development as assistance to the industries? I think this is totally unfair.

But let us take the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, with a budget of R114 million, R72 million of which are food subsidies and R17 million of which are artificial fertilizer subsidies. When it comes to food subsidies, we could argue in circles about who is actually subsidizing whom, but I should like to briefly argue the point in the light of certain information.

May I help you?

The State helps every sector of the national economy in many ways. If it decides to keep the prices of food and raw materials low by way of subsidies, it is foolish to argue about who actually subsidizes whom. In the Landbouweekblad of 19th December, 1972, Dr. Frans Cronje sets the average protection of industry at about 20%, which at last year’s figures worked out to about R500 million which our consumer had to pay up for durable and semi-durable consumer articles. Must we also include this as subsidies to the industries? I am asking this question. Sir, the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure is also mentioned here. It has a budget of R40 million. R32 million of that are repayable loans. But we must also remember that agricultural Credit and Land Tenure controls the entire coast up to the highwater mark. It handles all purchases of land for the State. It controls the Deeds Offices and also the Surveyor-General’s division. Is it fair to blaze all this abroad and say that this is direct assistance to agriculture? We then come to the transport assistance to the tune of R80 million. It is true that we must regard that as assistance as a result of the loss on low rated traffic. However must we also include in this the textile factories’ tariff on cotton? Who is responsible for the loss of about R60 million per year on suburban train traffic? For whose benefit is the subsidy of R16 million on the Department of Transport’s budget? From where does the railways recover its loss on low rated traffic? From high rated traffic, of course, such as fuel, machinery, parts and so on, to which agriculture makes its full contribution.

It goes further and compares income tax. It points, with great satisfaction, to the fact that agriculture pays only R35 million per year in income tax, and the manufacturing industry about R300 million, while the mining industry pays about R400 million. However, what has that to do with the matter? If agriculture’s profit is low, in any case, or is kept low in the national interest and supplemented by State assistance, as maintained by Volkshandel, the public spends less on food, of course, and can spend more on other things so that more taxable profit is made in other sectors. However, there is a further point. If the whole industrial sector pays R300 million per year in income tax, but for only a portion of its production, i.e. for durable and semi-durable consumer goods, the consumer pays R400 million per year more, who then is carrying that sector’s profits and its income tax?

It goes further and compares the contributions to the national revenue. Agriculture’s contribution to the national revenue has decreased since the twenties from about 20% to the present 9%. From this the conclusion is so easily drawn that agriculture is a declining industry. I want to state here that those who measure agriculture’s value to the national economy merely in terms of its contribution to the G.D.P. are failing to appreciate its true value and completely ignoring its ties to other sectors of the economy. To mention but one example, I point out that the composition and distribution of the population in South Africa is of the utmost importance. Therefore, with cognizance taken of the fact that in more than 200 of the 277 magisterial districts, agriculture is the foremost activity, the greatest source of revenue and the greatest supplier of work, this is a fact that must weigh very heavily in our country.

It goes further and compares export contributions. It states that as far as exports are concerned, unprocessed agricultural products contribute an average of about R200 million net per year plus about R250 million for processed agricultural articles which are included with the manufactured goods. It estimates agriculture’s net export contribution at R360 million per year. In contrast the mining industry exports products to the value of R1 400 million, and industry R530 million. The average of the agricultural exports had to be calculated over a very long period in order to reach this figure. Last year the exportation of unprocessed agricultural products, i.e. wool, mohair, karakul furs, raw hides and skins, maize, sorghum, citrus, deciduous fruits and tobacco alone amounted to more than R400 million, and in the previous year to R280 million. If one adds processed or semi-processed products like sugar, canned fruit, meat and wine, this means an additional R180 million. This does not include the manufactured goods from agricultural raw materials, like leather and textiles. According to an analysis that P. A. du Plessis made for 1956-’57, it appears that agriculture, forestry and fisheries only have to import 13% of their production means to establish a rand’s production, as against the 46% for the mechanical industries and 73% for the textile industry. In another calculation made by J. C. du Plessis, it was found that the primary sectors, i.e. agriculture, forestry, fisheries and the mining industry, contributed 89%, in the years 1956 to 1964, to the positive net contribution to the current account of the balance of payments, while the manufacturing sector, which evidenced the greatest growth, was responsible for 26% of the negative contribution to the current account. Therefore in September, 1972, we find that a financial journal like Tegniek could indicate, with a very fine article, that agriculture’s effort is the best as far as the improvement of our balance of payments last year was concerned. It describes how, and proves unequivocally that agriculture was largely responsible for the dramatic improvement in our balance of payments. The problem is, however, that as our secondary industries expanded and to a larger extent began manufacturing agriculture’s input locally, the farmer has, almost without exception, had to pay more for that than for what he previously imported. This weakens agriculture’s competitive position on the world market and impedes the expansion of agricultural export and therefore the earning of foreign exchange for industrial purposes. But we are not complaining about that, because we know it is tremendously essential for this country that we should also have industrial expansion.

As far as providing work is concerned, I do not want to say a great deal. Volkshandel compares the salaries and wages of agriculture with those of the mining and building industries, but it makes one basic error in its calculation: It does not take into account the farmer in his dual capacity as entrepreneur and administrator. If this is taken into account, agriculture’s salaries and wages compare well with those of any other sector of the economy. One blames the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut for launching, by means of its official organ, such a one-sided attack on our farming community and on the authorities for their measures of assistance to agriculture. Some of the statements that are disseminated abroad are irresponsible, unscientific and indefensible, and not worthy of the status of an organization like the Handelsinstituut. The State, which is the watchdog of every sector of our economy, is best able to decide where and how assistance must be granted. If agriculture requests assistance, it does so in a positive way without prejudicing other sectors in the process. We are supplementary to one another, not in competition.

Sir, I would very much have liked to speak about our extension services and about our development of agricultural production, but I felt that this article could not be left there and that one should rather take a look at it.

I want to conclude by saying that we realize we have a difficult task in this country, under difficult circumstances. We do not have an ideal agricultural country, and it speaks volumes for the fact that we could push up our production and productivity so much over the past few years. In spite of the farmers, who are decreasing in number, agricultural land that is not increasing in extent and the fact that the agriculturalist continually keeps his gaze on high, from which his greatest resources come, he is purposefully orientated towards accepting the greatest challenge of all time. Together with sympathetic Ministers and departments he will continue to feed and clothe this people, but he will, too, always keep enough in reserve to help provide for the millions beyond our northern boundaries and thereby make a contribution to the country’s economy.

Mr. Speaker, frankly I was not impressed with the opening remarks made by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. It is unfortunate that he should have started his speech by dragging politics into this very serious debate, dragging politics into an industry which should not have politics figuring in it at all. Of course, I do not know whether he was serious—he appeared to be serious—but whatever he said in this regard, there was nothing further from the truth. Of course, we on this side are not only encouraging the agricultural industry and encouraging the producer to produce more, but we are also considering the consumer in South Africa. I believe that unless we have a satisfied consumer we are going to find the going very heavy indeed. The motion before the House, moved by the hon. member for Heidelberg, has quite obvious aims: It is the same old story, a motion whitewashing the Minister and the Government. But we have become accustomed to this and I am very happy indeed to be able to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Walmer. In the amendment you will notice, Sir, that we place emphasis on the consumer and the producer, because this is very important indeed. There are 90 000 farmers in South Africa, showing a net income of R600 million. As there are 90 000 farmers, we all realize that there are far more consumers in South Africa today and therefore it is so difficult to establish a balance between the consumer and the producer to keep both parties happy. Of course we on this side—and it has been mentioned—believe there is one way we can solve our problem concerning the consumer and the producer, and that is to have the agricultural planning council which the United Party will establish when we come to power. We believe that farmers must be encouraged to accumulate as much land, as many farms, as they possibly can, and not discouraged from doing so. I am very happy to say that in South Africa we have an institution, a money-lending bank, the Land Bank, which is there to assist the farmer to do just that. We all agree that the Land Bank is doing a wonderful and tremendous job. Of course they have their problems, because when advancing money to agriculturists they have to consider many facets. They have to consider whether the agriculturist is a successful farmer, as well as the security he has to offer. But it is time that we encouraged people to stay on a farm, that we encouraged people to farm. I have so often come across people who are going out of their way to discourage people from farming. This is a very serious matter indeed, and I am sure hon. members on that side of the House will agree that there are far too many people being discouraged from taking part in the agricultural industry today.

The hard lesson we have learnt from the droughts and the lean years is that we need never be concerned about surpluses. We have had surpluses in the past, in the flush years, but we need never be concerned about surpluses in produce, and in raw materials. The Minister himself mentioned the other day that in only 27 years’ time we will have a population of 50 million people to feed. Now in the motion moved by the hon. member for Heidelberg he mentions and lays emphasis on the export of our produce. At the moment, as we all know, we are importing mutton, and before we can start considering the export of our produce, surely we should consider the figures which the hon. the Minister gave himself only recently in a Press interview, namely that we have to think about having 50 million people to feed in 27 years’ time. This, of course, involves long-term planning. We have many short-term plans in agriculture, but these do not get us very far and are certainly not going to assist us with the tremendous problems which will face us by the turn of the century. We have heard so much of increased wages, and we have had increased wages handed out during this very session of Parliament. As wages increase, so we will find our population eating more and more meat and particularly red meat, i.e. mutton and beef. We know that the non-Whites are eating more and more meat. This is not only to be ascribed to the increase in population, but also to the fact that they are learning to eat more and more red meat. We find this applies to the White people in South Africa as well.

We welcome the exportation of produce, but at the moment, as I say, we are even importing meat such as mutton to keep the people satisfied. I should like to make a suggestion to this House which will assist us in producing food which will be required in our own country in the very near future. Unfortunately we have had very few suggestions coming from the Government side, supporting their motion. One of the suggestions I want to make, concerns weather data and weather forecasts in South Africa. Weather data can be used to promote modern, sophisticated farming techniques, particularly in this country of ours. The following are some of the more important aspects of farming where climatological information can assist the farmer: the adaptability of crops could be made better use of if we had more accurate weather forecasts; diseases, insects and termites—it will assist us in fighting these parasites; the microclimatic affect, i.e. wind and erosion on cultivated land; livestock production—if we had more accurate forecasts, this would assist us in livestock production as well in that we would be able to provide the necessary shelter for the animals against wind and inclement weather.

Listening to the hon. member for Heidelberg, I was interested in what he had to say about the slaughtering of cows and ewes, female animals. I was in agreement with what he had to say, but I would like to take it further. I am very concerned that we are today slaughtering far too many calves. Beef is going to be one of our major red meats in the very near future. The demand for beef is going to grow and grow. Today we find that we are even exporting calves. I am very worried about this. I know that the hon. member for Heidelberg farms with calves. He rears them to maturity. In the United Kingdom they have a system whereby they try to protect the slaughtering of these little animals. It is worked on a subsidy basis. This was the case; I do not know if it still is. However, we should try to devise ways and means to protect calves from being slaughtered. I know it is a problem. Our milk producers, for example, cannot keep calves. They have to sell them because they cannot afford to keep them on small-holdings. They cannot afford the grazing or the supplementary feeding to keep them alive until they reach maturity. We should try to devise ways and means of protecting them from being slaughtered, at such a young age.

Of course, to produce more red meat, we should consider a certain percentage of our maize crop being reserved for the production of red meat. At the moment we are paying from R4-50 to R4-60 a bag. At these prices it is not economic to supplement feeding in the production of beef and mutton. Unless the Government can curb the high production costs the consumers will continue to pay more and more for farm produce. It is only natural and we must of course avoid this at all costs. In the third and final report of the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture, the Marais Commission’s report, we see that many farm implements are imported free of customs and excise duty, tractors for example. Tractors alone form 70% of the machinery being imported free of excise duty. We cannot expect more to be done in this regard. However, I think the hon. the Minister will agree that when it comes to spares for farm machinery, the figures are exorbitant. Sometimes it is difficult even to believe that a part can cost so much in South Africa and many of these spares are manufactured in this country.

While on the subject of farm machinery, there is something else that has been worrying us on this side of the House. Of course it is due to Government policy and we cannot do anything about it while this Government is in power. Many farmers have complained to me and to others about the fact that no sooner have they trained a Bantu to drive a tractor efficiently—it takes them quite six months to train—then he returns to the homeland. The same driver never comes back to the same farmer again to drive the same machine. Next time he goes to somebody else where he is probably taught to drive a combine or some other machine. This is costing the farmer, I will not say millions, but certainly unnecessary expenditure. It is unnecessary expenditure, because the hon. the Minister will appreciate what it is to have efficient operators on expensive machines. Unfortunately my time is limited. My time has expired, and I should have liked to deal with the more minor matter but I do not have the time. We ought to be one of the largest exporting countries in the world today. We have the capital, we have the labour in South Africa, we have the resources and we have the know-how. We seem to have everything but we sadly lack production in all spheres.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Heidelberg introduced a motion which I found encouraging in this sense that we again have an opportunity, as happens once a year, to take a positive look at our agriculture. Unfortunately he was speaking over the heads of the Opposition, for they criticized him for having praised agriculture as a praiseworthy profession. They were not happy about that. The hon. members said he was being sentimental. One can never be sentimental about one of the oldest professions in the world. It is a pity that that should have happened, after he had stated the matter so positively. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Heidelberg … [Interjections.] The figures he quoted concerning the achievements of the farmers, were of importance to me for they enable us to tell the farmer at some time or other: “Man, you are not entirely bad; look what you have achieved.” On that I want to congratulate the hon. member for Heidelberg.

He expressed his concern over our beef industry. Every subsequent speaker discussed this. The more rapid finishing of our livestock is very important if we want to feed a growing population. The reason we are exporting meat today is because the world price of meat is such that after deducting freight charges and cooling costs we still make a considerable profit. That gives hon. members an idea of what the world price of meat is.

The hon. member for Newton Park tried to throw cold water over the whole matter by saying: Look at our agricultural faculties, where there has been only a 7% growth in 14 years. The hon. member has already received replies to this from other hon. members on my side of the House. That hon. member must bear in mind that he drew comparisons with a period during which things did not go well with agriculture.

Have things not gone well with agriculture for an entire 14 years?

Of course. There were eight years of drought in the wool industry, and a wool price which was not encouraging. But the hon. member must consider other norms. He must not confine himself only to the number of students. Because our country has developed to such an extent in the industrial sphere, there was a substitute for the person who did not want to farm. Commerce and industry received him with open arms. He was able to pursue other directions. When a farm is available there are thousands of people who are prepared to take a 100% loan to be able to acquire a piece of land. He is even prepared to give up his profession to be able to go farming. That is the norm which hon. members should consider. There is confidence in agriculture, in spite of our fluctuating weather conditions. But because there has been a decrease in the number of agricultural students over a period is not reason enough to accept that there was no confidence in agriculture.

The hon. member stated that the chairman of the South African Agricultural Union had said that the income per farmer was only R8 000, and that there was a percentage who were making a net profit of only R1 000 to R3 000 per annum. Now it must be borne in mind that this is a net income. His house rent, water, lights and taxes have already been paid. Then he has that amount left over, and he still has his own livestock to slaughter.

I said gross income.

No, the hon. member said net. Then the hon. member was perhaps saying the wrong thing. What I am getting at is that he included the smallholding farmers. Those farmers who farm for a supplementary income were included in that figure.

But when I discuss these matters, hon. members must not assume that I think everything is as it should be with agriculture. I have learnt something today. I am prepared to learn even from a United Party man. There are many things to which we must give our attention. What I want, however, is that the hon. member should not, in order to put his point of view, always state the matter so negatively that the interest I want there to be in agriculture is also lost to us.

The hon. member referred to agricultural financing. He said that we were not providing the necessary agricultural financing, and did not have the means to finance the farmers. This he mentioned as one of the reasons why there had been a recession. The hon. member need only consider for a moment the assistance which the Department of Agricultural Credit has provided since this department was established. An amount of R141 million was lent to 66 500 farmers. Of that amount R56½ million was lent to 2 289 farmers to purchase land at 5% interest; and an amount of R33 million was lent to 2 314 farmers to redeem their mortgages and pay other debts.

But what did the Land Bank do? At present it has an outstanding amount of R412 million in the form of loans to farmers; an amount of R81 million in the form of long-term loans to co-operative societies, and an amount of R472 million in the form of short-term loans. This amounts to more than R1 000 million. We are being criticized by farmers who say that credit is being granted too easily. But these loans have to be paid back some time or other, even if it is at 5.% Now the hon. member says that we are faced with these problems because we have not created financing facilities for the farmer. I cannot agree with that. In addition the hon. member said that I have only now discovered that it is dry in Worcester. I was there last year, and the year before last.

And only now do you want to do something about it?

No. The Minister of Water Affairs announced which schemes were being applied. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services has considered the problem of salination.

Can you tell me what you are going to do for those people? Will you announce any steps?

Should he have made rain?

Why may Parliament not know?

Sir, I visited Worcester yesterday, and we are considering their suggestions. Consider the Hex River Valley; this is not a problem which one can solve overnight. A fantastic scheme has been devised, with a three-mile long tunnel through the mountain; the dam has been constructed; it had 13% water last year. Should I have gone to the farmers and said: “I promise you that the dam will be full tomorrow?” The hon. member said that I have only now heard of the drought at Worcester. I do not want to quarrel with him; that is not in my nature. I just want to make him understand that I did not hear about the drought in Worcester only yesterday. The other steps we are going to take will be announced in due course.

I come now to another matter. Hon. members on that side admit that we did have to devalue.

Under your circumstances.

As a result of devaluation the prices of agricultural implements and production means, which we imported, had to increase by 17%. The hon. member is concerned, and the hon. member for Walmer said that the prices of foodstuffs were going to increase by 30%. Let the hon. member be positive for once. He was criticizing me on the increase in production costs. I admit that production costs did rise; it is of no use trying to conceal this. I now want to ask hon. members on that side whether they are satisfied with our having increased the price of fresh milk last week by 2 cents per litre.

You had no option.

Was it right to do so?

Yes.

But hon. members agree that we had to devalue. The production costs increased; we are increasing the price of fresh milk for the farmer by 1,5 cents per litre and for the consumer by 2 cents per litre.

If you had not done that, there would have been no milk at all.

Sir, it is difficult for me to do my work as Minister if I am unable to receive any assistance from the Opposition. “They want to play it both ways”, as the newspapers said. What they lost on the swings they want to make up on the merry-go-round. [Laughter.] I asked hon. members on that side to defend this step as producers and to help me, for my position is a difficult one if I receive telegrams like the following: “Housewives’ League of South Africa protest strongly against the increase of milk by two cents a litre”. These telegrams are streaming in to my office. I shall come in a moment to those hon. members who said that the farmer should be paid a decent price for his produce. But what must one do if costs are continually increasing? I want to pay my Bantu worker who milks my cows every day a higher wage, and my neighbour wants to do the same, and the hon. member as well. I do not begrudge my Bantu worker a larger salary, but where must the money come from?

Sir, I come now to the hon. member for Bethal who to my mind set out the functions of the three departments very well. The hon. member greatly facilitated my task here by setting out those functions in such a fine manner. I wanted to mention certain of the achievements of a department like the Department of Agricultural Technical Services today. An amount of R47 million is being spent here on research, on new projects. I am thinking now of one direction in which we must go. The hon. member for East London North, as well as the hon. member for Heidelberg were concerned about our livestock population. Research is being done at Onderstepoort and other institutes of ours to cause our milch-cows to bear twin calves after hormone treatment; these are all methods and techniques which one will simply have to apply to be able to supply a growing population with food. I am pleased the hon. member for Bethal mentioned these things here. Sir, before I come to the hon. member for Walmer I should just like to inform the Opposition that it does not pay to play politics with agriculture. I want to know from the Opposition whether importing mutton is justified? Should we, or should we not, import mutton?

You have no option.

I said that you had planned poorly.

I now want to quote to you what was said at a meeting by the hon. member for Albany, who is not present here at the moment. The caption to this report read: “M.P. condemns importing of mutton.” He criticized the Minister of Agriculture from beginning to end. He made this speech in the platteland and said that the whole business seemed to him like an election ploy to help Dawie de Villiers in Johannesburg West, where the housewives were being promised that they would be able to buy cheaper mutton. Sir, we must encourage the farmer to produce, and how can he produce if he does not receive an encouraging price for his product?

†The hon. member for Walmer said that the floor price of beef must be such that it encourages the farmers to produce. In other words, he is asking for a higher floor price for beef. The floor price for 1A beef was 44 cents a kilogram. The Meat Board is now considering a support price, not a floor price but a support price, of something in the vicinity of 62 cents per kg, but the auction price at the moment is 72 cents per kg. It is the intention to encourage farmers to produce by saying to them that they will not have this big fluctuation that there is today—a high price today and a low price tomorrow—but that they will more or less be guaranteed that the price will not fall below 60 cents per kg. The hon. member says that food prices are going to rise by 30%, and yet in the next sentence he asks for a higher floor price. Those were his words. Sir, how can we have cheap meat at a lower price for the consumer if the hon. member asks us to increase the floor price of beef? You cannot have it both ways.

May I ask a question? The hon. the Minister referred to a support price and a floor price. When I was speaking, I was referring to a long-term floor price so that the producer can know what the long-term possibilities are. I would like the hon. the Minister to distinguish between a support price and a floor price.

Let us assume that the price drops from 75 cents per kg to 60 cents. The Meat Board will then buy in meat to stimulate the market, and if the price does not go up again, the Meat Board will gradually sell that meat on different markets, spreading from Cape Town to Durban or other markets. That is the intention. But it is not altogether a floor price; it is a support price. If they buy in meat for two months at 60 cents a kg and they find that they have not got the funds to keep on buying, then they will lower the support price, but if you announce an out-and-out floor price then you have to stick to it. We did that in the past when we did not have slaughtering facilities.

*Then the hon. member requested that we export our surplus maize in the form of meat. Does the hon. member realize that if one puts 25 million to 35 million bags of maize into cattle, you will not be able to sell that meat for 60 cents per kilogram?

Then they will look like “Sarge”.

Sir, it is not that I am condemning this suggestion, but I want the hon. member to help me when I run into difficulties with the consumers who say: “Look at the terrible price we have to pay for this product.” Let us understand one another well. This Government does not want to let the consumer pay an unreasonable price for any product, but in agriculture we have two sets of clients; on the one hand the farmers who have to be encouraged to produce, and on the other the consumer whose interests also have to be looked after. Sir, why do we have only eight million head of cattle in the country today? Because there was not a price for the farmer which encouraged him to produce. Why have the numbers of our sheep decreased, apart from the withdrawal scheme? The withdrawal scheme has been responsible for the withdrawal of three million sheep, but there was a time when we had 38 million sheep; today we have 32 million.

The veld is finished.

No, it is raining now. We did not give the farmer any encouragement to go all out and produce to the best of his ability, because he did not have any stability, because he did not have slaughtering facilities and because he had a floor price which sometimes made it impossible for him to produce. But in the meantime the production costs of the maize farmer have also increased, and the world price of maize has increased, and if I have to raise the maize price this year, and if we have to put 35 million bags of maize into cattle, there will have to be a revision of the price of meat. One must see this matter in its entirety; one must not wrest it out of its context. But, Sir, the hon. member had to put on a display here today; he had to state his party’s standpoint, but in his heart of hearts he speaks as I do when we discuss agriculture.

The hon. member referred to harvester termites. Sir, we have repeatedly seen that the natural enemies of the harvester termite that live in grass—the spider, the praying mantis and so on that all prey on the harvester termite—find shelter in veld which is well covered, but when that veld has been eaten bare, the harvester termites flourish. We have investigated various preparations such as hara-kiri, which is mixed with lucerne, to exterminate the termites, and we wanted to subsidize these preparations for the farmers, but we are still finding in our research that these are not a success. If one uses aerial spraying methods one has to withdraw the livestock completely. But I shall give the hon. member further information in regard to the harvester termite, for this is a threat to some of our grazing veld. But the hon. member must not say that we have introduced a livestock withdrawal scheme which is going to cost millions of rand, and that we are in the meantime allowing the termites to destroy the veld further. It has not rained in those areas, and now the termites are flourishing, but once it has rained and the farmers withdraw that livestock, the spider, the praying mantis and the other natural enemies will do their work and devour the termites. Another very important animal is the African ant-eater, for they live on those termites.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet stated the agricultural aspect very positively. We would not like to play off commerce and industry against agriculture, for they have no chance at all of competing against us. Agriculture has one important basic function: It ensures that every individual has enough to eat every day, and if one has ensured that, at a reasonable price for the producer and the consumer, one has a happy population, both White and non-White. One must keep this matter in order, for the sake of everyone. But it was a pity that the Handelsinstituut published that article, and I should like to thank the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet for the figures which he quoted and explained so well for us.

The hon. member for East London North discussed the importing of mutton. I think that we understand one another on this score. We are aware that two years ago we slaughtered 9,1 million sheep in one year; last year we slaughtered 6,4 million sheep. We do not have a sufficient number of sheep, and we do not want the housewives to get out of the habit of eating mutton and resort instead to barbecue chickens or fish—we want to maintain the balance. The farmers of our country are quite satisfied about our importing mutton, not so much to force the price down, but to maintain the habit in the consumer of eating mutton. But the hon. member is quite right. We shall have to take a look at this. At the present price of meat, and with the shortage which is staring us in the face, we must think again before we slaughter our calves, especially at our dairies. In the past the prices were not encouraging and it simply did not pay one to rear calves. Once the calf had drunk the beastings, one slaughtered the calf because one could get 30 cents per gallon for the milk. But at today’s meat prices it is better to encourage the farmer to rear those calves. The export of young calves is still in an experimental stage. It is not yet assuming tremendous proportions, but we will have to look into this matter and I want to inform the hon. member that he has given me very good suggestions.

It is true that the price of spare parts has increased, but the salary of the man manufacturing the spare parts has also increased. The wages of the labourers in that factory have increased and so, too, his travelling allowance, electrical power—everything has gone up, but to my mind the price of spare parts has really gone up far in excess of that. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is also aware of this.

He is simply keeping an eye on it.

No, he is not simply keeping an eye on it. He has already dealt with a few. All these things come together in a pool when one has to determine the price of a product. Then one has to take all these cost increases into consideration, and see whether the farmer can still produce at prices which are profitable for him.

The hon. members asked for the introduction of an agricultural planning council. We do have an agricultural advisory council. But one can plan until one is blue in the face. The basic essential in regard to all these things is that one should pay one’s producer a price which makes it profitable for him to produce. One must regulate his circumstances in such a way that he is in fact able to produce, while his marketing must be such that he can dispose of his products. That is the basic require of agriculture in our country, with our 21 control boards and marketing councils and all those things. But I shall give further consideration to this agricultural planning council. All I can say is that it can be the most wonderful council, but this principle which I have now stated to you, is the secret of success in agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister started his speech by saying that we have attacked the hon. member for Heidelberg because he had praised the agricultural industry. We are very fond of the hon. the Minister, but, really, he should not deliver himself of such things. Surely, nobody here attacked him specifically because he praised the agricultural industry. We merely attacked him for having expressed his appreciation for the “able and sympathetic” manner in which the Government was handling the agricultural industry. I do not think we have a single person here who can say from the bottom of his heart that this Government is handling the agricultural industry in a sympathetic and able manner.

Then the hon. the Minister went on to refer to agricultural financing. He mentioned the amounts being spent by the Land Bank. Surely he knows that the Land Bank only provides 30% of the loans. Surely he knows that last year we could only get R50 million as a maximum loan at the Land Bank.

Million or thousand?

R50 000—I beg your pardon, Sir. Who could get it? The hon. the Minister knows how many applications for Land Bank loans I referred to him. These were meritorious applications, but not all of them succeeded.

The hon. the Minister went on to say that devaluation was the reason for the increase in production costs. He asked us whether we were in favour of devaluation. Under the circumstances created by this Government we had no alternative but to devalue. He said that devaluation was responsible for the increase. Was devaluation responsible for the increase in railway rates on livestock? This was not an increase of 5%, but of 60%. Was devaluation responsible for the increase in the railway rates on, for instance, maize? For a truck-load of maize weighing more than 1 800 tons the rate prior to the increase was 41 cents per 100 kilograms over a distance of 500 kilometres. This has now risen to 53 cents, an increase of 26%. If it is less than a truck-load, it has risen from 47 cents …

Forty-eight cents.

… to Rl-03. That is an increase of no less than 126%. Does the hon. the Minister want to suggest that this happened as a result of devaluation? Next we come to the rates on lucerne. If one wanted to rail a truck-load of lucerne, the tariff used to be 41 cents per 100 kilograms; now it is 61 cents, an increase of more than 50%.

Sixty-two cents.

No, do not play the fool now. There you have the hon. members who have to fight for the farmers, but they are playing the fool here. Let the hon. member for Welkom rise and make a speech instead of playing the fool. [Interjections.]

Order!

Please be responsible! After all, you are not a child. If one wants to rail less than a truck-load of lucerne, the tariff rises from 47 cents to R1-03, an increase of no less than 118%. Can the Minister say that this is the result of devaluation? We attacked the Minister on the grounds of the lack of forward planning. That is why we attacked him. Does he really want to tell me now than 118%. Can the Minister say that this respect? Let us take the position in regard to meat. He referred to it himself. This country has a tremendous potential for meat production. Why have we landed in the position that we have to import meat? Surely this was unnecessary? Let us see what the reason is for our having landed in that position. The hon. the Minister himself mentioned the reason. He said there had been no incentive. When meat and wool prices reached rock-bottom two years ago, this side of the House made the plea that wool should be subsidized. We had to wait for two years before the Government responded to our pleas.

That is not true.

In 1970 I pleaded for that in my first speech in this House, but it was only given last year. What happened then? If only they had listened to us that day! Anybody could have told him that the wool price would recover. Mr. Frans van Wyk, the chairman of the National Wool Growers’ Association, told him that. They could merely have sent a mission abroad—then they would have seen that it would improve. But, no, it was allowed to drop to rockbottom. People went out of production. Now that the wool price has risen to 300 cents, the production has dropped by 20%, i.e. 200 000 bales, which could have netted us an extra R60 million in foreign exchange, not only the wool farmer of South Africa, but also South Africa as a whole. Now, is that planning, Mr. Speaker?

Then, in the same breath, I come to meat. During that same year we pleaded for a higher floor price, and the hon. member for Prieska supported us. I want to pay tribute to him, for he is not as irresponsible as the hon. member for Dewetsdorp (Welkom)! [Laughter.] He joined us in pleading for the floor price to be raised in South Africa, but, Sir, we had to give meat away at 18 cents per pound. And what happened? The people went out of production. The entire Western Province, which produced wool and meat, switched to wheat, and now we have a wheat surplus. Now, is that planning? Because the people have gone out of production, there is no meat in the country. The housewife has to pay exorbitant prices for it, and we have to import meat from Australia. But, Sir, just consider the price at which we have to import it. We imported 2 888 carcasses of lamb, which were landed in Durban at 76,2 cents per kg. But then import duty, local railage, agency commission and cold-storage fees must still be added. If these are reckoned in, another 11 cents are added to the price. In other words, we are prepared to pay 87 cents per kg to the Australians. In Johannesburg it is 88 cents, whereas it is 77 cents in Durban. The next consignment, the one for March, was ordered at 80,8 cents per kg, plus the 12 cents, which resulted in a total price of 92 cents in Johannesburg. Let us take a look at what the floor price is.

May I put a question?

Order! Does the hon. member want to reply to a question?

No, unfortunately I do not have the time. I only have five minutes. The hon. member spoke for such a long time that I do not have enough time now. Let us see what the floor price is for super lamb, the best lamb one can get. It is 53 cents per kg.

Where!

That is the floor price. Do not be foolish. For super A it is 48,5 cents. For grade I the floor price is 45,52 cents. We are prepared to import it at 92 cents. Sir, let me go further now.

What was the auction price of that meat?

The hon. member is referring to auction prices. I do not have the auction prices here. In any case, what do they have to do with this matter? Sir, let me just tell that hon. member something. Here I have a statement of account for 40 lambs railed to Johannesburg. They fetched 92 cents per kg. But this is the point, Sir: Do you know what the costs involved came to? The costs for these 40 lambs came to R83-83.

[Inaudible.]

My time has virtually expired, but I shall furnish the hon. the Minister with the information. The costs came to R2-09 per sheep. These lambs weighed 8 kg each. That is to say, it costs 26 cents per kg to market the meat, and the floor price is 53 cents! It is true, these lambs did fetch 92 cents per kg. But the farmer has to surrender 26 cents per kg. When one comes to the floor price of 46 cents per kg, of which the farmer has to surrender 26 cents—I grant that he will have to surrender slightly less because the commission becomes less, but he will still have to surrender approximately 24 cents—what is he going to get out? This is less than 12 cents per pound, but we are prepared to import Australian meat at 92 cents per kg. And then the hon. the Minister talks about planning! But is this planning?

What did they weigh?

Eight kilograms. These were not my sheep; they belonged to someone else. These are people whose sheep are in as poor a condition as are those of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. The hon. member said we should eliminate the bottlenecks from the agricultural industry, but the major bottleneck is, surely, the droughts. Year after year we pleaded with this Government just to give the farmers a chance to build up a fodder bank in South Africa. But who can build up a fodder bank with the railway rates being what they are today? After all, that hon. Minister was instrumental in the increase in the railway rates. One has to pay R1 per 100 kg of lucerne. Just take chaff as an example. If farmers in South Africa want to build up for themselves a fodder bank with chaff, it will never be necessary for us to fear a drought. But who buys chaff today, when the railage comes to more than the price of the chaff one buys, if one does so in normal times? And then these hon. members talk about planning! Surely there is no planning in this respect. The hon. member for Heidelberg made a plea here that we convert maize into wheat, and the hon. member for East London North did so too. However, the Minister said one could not stuff 60 000 bags of maize into cattle …

No, please; I said the price was affected.

Does the hon. the Minister know what the position is? If he sold 2 million bags of maize at R3-52 per bag—this is not this year’s price; it is the previous year’s price, and we know that the maize price has risen this year—then the foreign exchange would be R7,04 million. If one converted this into beef, one would be able to get 12 000 metric tons out of it, which would earn R9,6 million in foreign exchange. Then one would make a profit of R2,56 million—in other words, 36% more than would have been the case with maize. We have a plus of 60 million bags, and if one converted this, one could earn R75 million more in foreign exchange for this country, but the Minister says this is impossible.

No, please; I never said that. I said the price would have to rise.

But, surely, the world price is higher. After all, the hon. the Minister knows what the world price is. We pleaded for that year after year, but what did the hon. the Minister’s predecessor say? He would never hear of it. The greatest single factor is the railage, and if the hon. the Minister of Agriculture cannot persuade the hon. the Minister of Transport to rail fodder at a reasonable price in normal times so that a fodder bank may be built up for the future, then matters in the agricultural industry will remain as they are at present. The agriculturist will not be the only one to suffer; it is the housewife, the consumer, in South Africa who will suffer. My plea today is not for the agriculturist only …

I agree with you; why are you upbraiding me for it?

Why do you not do something about it? After all, the hon. the Minister is the only person who can do something about it; does the hon. the Minister have no influence in the Cabinet then? Is he being dominated by the Minister of Transport? I want to emphasize again that I am pleading not only for the agriculturist in South Africa, but also for the housewife, for every consumer in the country. The longer the agricultural industry is neglected by this Government, the longer the housewife and the consumer in South Africa will have to pay more, for people cannot produce at prices which are not worth while. I know the hon. the Minister is sympathetic in this regard, but he must act more forcefully in the Cabinet.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion and amendment lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (a) problems caused by the United Kingdom joining the European Economic Community; and
2. (b) the lack of diplomatic and trade representation in many countries, particularly in the Far East,

Mr. Speaker, it is pure coincidence that on the same day there should be two motions dealing with agriculture; one deals with the export of agricultural commodities and the other deals almost exclusively with internal consumption. In dealing with this motion, I shall deal firstly with the difficulties that can be anticipated, as far as we are concerned, with the United Kingdom, once it has joined the E.E.C.

That is all in anticipation?

It is an historical fact that, for economic and traditional reasons, our best trading partner has been and still is Great Britain ever since we became an exporting country. Great Britain, for some considerable time, has been buying more than 30% of our total exports, gold excluded. The United Kingdom is South Africa’s major export market as can be seen from the following figures: Preserves, fresh fruit and vegetables, 53%; Hides, skins and fur skins, 46%; Woodpulp, 55%; Fishmeal, 55%; Meat products, 47%. The category of fruit and vegetables, both fresh and preserved, is of particular significance because they either enter Great Britain free or at a preferential rate in accordance with traditional British trade policy of cheap imports of food to keep the food price in the United Kingdom low. This applies to agricultural raw materials. This is completely contrary to the import policy of Common Market countries. They openly protect their agricultural sector and discriminate against outside sources of supply in varying degrees. Great Britain will now have to adopt this foreign trade policy after a brief phasing-in period. In the case of wine there is no such phasing-in period and the preference-price system virtually prohibits any considerable future wine exports to the E.E.C. markets. In the case of the canned fruit industry, South African exporters will have to surmount a tariff and a sugar-content surcharge which amounts to approximately 24% as against the previous free trade entry into the United Kingdom.

Whom are you quoting?

The canned fruit industry exports 90% of its production, with some 60% going to the United Kingdom alone and the other 40% to 70 other markets. Nearly 60% of our citrus products is exported, of which one-half goes to Britain alone. This will also now have to surmount new trade barriers.

Jan, who wrote that speech?

This should prove conclusively that South Africa is very dependent on the markets of the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, on the E.E.C., a few African countries, the U.S.A. and Japan, as is also substantiated. We must remember that the E.E.C. took ten years to evolve and to develop. It took all of ten years for their agricultural policy to be co-ordinated to such an extent that they could have universal policy as far as the E.E.C. is concerned. It would take us an awfully long period to evolve an agricultural policy to meet with the handicaps that we will experience once the United Kingdom enters the E.E.C. In the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Export Trade of the Republic [R.P. 69—’72], which is an extremely interesting document, the conclusion is that if exports are not stimulated further in future, the balance of payments may become a limiting factor in South Africa’s economic growth as well as its ability to maintain and to improve its military and strategic defences. To put it the other way round, a high and sustained rate of growth will in future become increasingly dependent upon the country’s ability to export goods. Such ability will have to be sought in the country’s comparatively favourable natural and human resources. This requires, inter alia, a rapid improvement in output per unit of input and in this connection a third growth determining factor is necessary and that is technology and managerial improvements. The Commission further states that some of the main reasons for South Africa’s relatively poor export performance are, inter alia, (1) poor agricultural harvests with the droughts we have; (2) the increasing poor competitive position of the manufacturing sector in foreign markets; and (3) various political factors. Some of these are of an incidental and temporary nature, but others represent deep-rooted problems.

*I do not at this juncture want to discuss the last reason furnished by the Commission. I shall subsequently refer to that again briefly. However, I want to agree with the standpoint of the Commission that an intensified export effort should consequently be regarded as being inseparably linked to the stage of economic development to which South Africa is now proceeding, which is that in future exports will have to play an important role as the stimulator of growth. It is imperative to realize that the sustained economic development of South Africa will probably depend to an increasing extent in future on its ability to find great quantities of new export products to supplement those of agriculture and mining. In this connection the fundamental long-term choice confronting this country appears to be clear: A lower economic growth rate or intensified efforts to increase exports in order to maintain in that way and, if possible, increase growth. It is significant to hear what the Commission has to say in this regard. I quote, on page 628—

Then the Commission goes on to say—

I want to return briefly to the diplomatic, or rather the lack of diplomatic representation, of the Republic of South Africa in so many countries. It is a fact that many other countries are internationally differently geared than South Africa. Recently Australia, one of our fiercest competitors in the Southern Hemisphere, underwent a change of government. This government has not only recognized Communist China, but has in addition entered into diplomatic and/or trade reciprocity with virtually all communist countries. The same applies to New Zealand and certain Latin American countries in the Southern Hemisphere, and in the Northern Hemisphere to Germany with its Ost-politik, Italy and perhaps soon France as well. These are all left-wing governments.

We heard over the radio yesterday that the United States of America and Communist China are going to establish representation in one another’s capital cities. It remains an irrefutable fact that the Republic of South Africa is being pushed out further into the cold and isolated. I do not want to express any opinion on the political aspects of this. The motion relates more specifically to trade.

I come now to paragraph (b) of the motion, viz. the lack of diplomatic and trade representation in so many countries, particularly in the East. At present we have representation in Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan, as far as the East is concerned. If one thinks of Communist China with its population of almost 800 million, and Burma, Thailand, Malaya, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philipines and the many other countries of the Far East which I have not mentioned, including India, the numerical strength of the population of these countries amounts to more than 2 000 million. This is more than two-thirds of the world population. I reiterate that in none of these countries do we have diplomatic or trade representation. What is the position in Australia, comparatively speaking? Not only does Australia have trade representation as well as diplomatic representation in certain respects with virtually all the countries which I have mentioned, but a stage has been reached where Australia regards all countries to the north of her, consisting of 1 500 million people, as her market area. For some reason or other it seems to me we are prepared to relinquish this to Australia. I maintain that we are not doing our best to try to establish trade representation where we are still able to do so, and where there is still room for us to do so, whether on an official or unofficial basis. Under the circumstances the best we can do is to make our trade representation in those countries in which we are still allowed to operate under our present policy as strong as possible. In this respect I want to mention Hong Kong first. In Japan we have two trade representatives. According to the latest reports, a third post is vacant. I want to allege that we need at least that number as far as Japan and the Japanese market is concerned. Japan offers a tremendous market both for imports and exports. We are trading on a large scale with Japan. We cannot spare our trade representatives in Japan for any other area in the East. In Hong Kong we also have two trade representatives. They also have to cover Taiwan …

We have one in Taiwan.

Quiet, man, and look at your books. I repeat that the same two trade representatives which we have in Hong Kong are also those who have to cover Taiwan. These are the same two people, and I know them. The fact remains that the representatives we have in Hong Kong have to try and cover our trade which passes through Hong Kong to Communist China, as well as the trade to Nationalist China and what we are still able to obtain to the south of Nationalist China. We are still able to obtain trade there. In this way it is also possible to trade with the Middle East. It is consequently a physical impossibility for those two trade envoys to cover the area if they want to visit any of the areas I have mentioned more than once every four months.

Why must they cover the Middle East?

I want to make a specific appeal to the hon. the Minister. He knows the situation there; he was there on a recent visit in September; I was there too. He knows the situation in Hong Kong as well as I know it, and he knows as well as I do that the two trade representatives we have there could never cover the area they ought to be covering. I want to appeal to him to ensure that there will be at least four trade representatives, or even six, if that is possible, for they are the people standing in the gateway to trade with the East as far as South Africa is concerned. Nowhere in the East do we at this stage have diplomatic representation. Sir, diplomatic relations between Taiwan and Japan were severed recently. Towards the end of September the Japanese president visited China to hold talks with Chou en Lai and within the space of five days, while I was in Taiwan, the announcement was made that diplomatic relations between Taiwan and Japan had been severed and that diplomatic relations had been entered into with Communist China. Sir, do you know that Taiwan’s trade with Japan at that stage amounted to R1 000 million per annum? I regarded this as a golden opportunity—and I said so—to step into the vacuum and to see what we could get out of this for South Africa. I know that we have sold maize to Taiwan. Unfortunately we cannot now afford to export even part of our crop to Taiwan owing to the fact that we have had a tremendous drought and a poor crop. But I maintain that there is a possibility of selling far more to Taiwan than we have done up to now. I have already said that a vacuum developed because Taiwan severed its trade relations with Japan quite unexpectedly.

In addition I want to urge the Government to investigate all channels for establishing representation in Thailand as well. Thailand has an honorary consul here in South Africa, in Durban. We have no representation there at all. We know that there is still great trade potential for South Africa in Thailand. Quite possibly the Minister will be able to tell us in his reply whether there are any problems in this connection. Cannot we make a start by appointing an honorary consul there? Surely there will then be reciprocity between Tailand and South Africa. I note, when I look through the list of our representatives abroad, that in some countries we have a tremendous team of people; I am pleased about that; that is as it should be, particularly in so far as trade is concerned. But I want to advocate that we should make a start by appointing honorary consuls, on the basis of reciprocity, in countries with large populations where we do not have representation. We can then at a subsequent stage appoint trade representatives there, so that we will have a better chance to compete with countries like Australia and other countries in the Southern Hemisphere. We ought to proceed from the standpoint that we want to trade with the entire world, not only in certain zones. Australia has always been only too eager, apart from the tremendous trade potential which it has to the north of it, to gain access even here on the Continent of Africa. In African countries where we have found it difficult to retain our trade relations and we have been forced out because of our policy, Australia has strenghthened her trade representation. I note that one of their representatives stated during the course of the week that with the problem South Africa is now experiencing in getting its products into Zambia, Australia has a good chance of getting in there and filling the gap, so anxious are they to expand their world trade. We know what happened in the Middle East years ago. I advocated in this same House that we should open an office in Lebanon so that we could trade with the Middle East. Australia had had a trade representative there for a long time. If one walks into a shop there and asks the assistant to take down a can from the shelf, you see that it comes from Australia and not from South Africa. Fortunately we have now overcome those problems and we do have a representative there.

Sir, I hope that I still have a few minutes left in which to discuss the wool situation. Sir, as far as wool is concerned, the situation is somewhat different owing to the fact that the South African wool farmer, in agreement with his Australian and New Zealand partners, established an international wool secretariat which stands outside politics and which has found it possible over the course of years to open offices in those countries which I have already mentioned, on a far greater scale than our Government has found it possible to appoint trade representatives there. But in spite of all this, although we have far more representation undertaking promotional work on behalf of wool as such, we nevertheless find that our friends in Australia have far better access with their wool products to those countries than we have. Geographically it is better situated, I admit that, but the fact remains that they have gained a hold over the wool trade in the Middle East world which is simply fantastic. I just want to mention that I was in Persia, where if I remember correctly, there are 27 factories, 22 of which process wool. Some of them, particularly those intended for the manufacture of Persian carpets, use some of the finest wool available in the world. Two or three years ago, or perhaps more, perhaps ten years ago, Persia thought she could flood world markets with cheap carpets made from inferior, coarse wool, but she discovered that the world no longer wanted this, and they have now made a complete about-face and are today manufacturing some of the most beautiful carpets from fantastic lamb’s wool of 80 and upwards quality. Those of you who know about wool will know what I am talking about now. But it is not being bought here in South Africa. Now, I want to admit that our diplomatic and trade representatives in Persia have only recently been appointed; our people have not been there for long. I met the trade representative there and promised to send him, through the Wool Board, a memorandum on all the characteristics of wool, which would cover the entire matter so that in his turn he could know what he was talking about, for when I discussed this matter with him I realized that he knew nothing about the quality of wool. I urged him to preferably refrain from discussing wool until he had made a study of it. I am mentioning this one product for which I had the privilege, over a period of 30 years, of building up a world-wide organization which made it possible for our wool to gain access to countries which it was not so easy for governments to gain access to, even behind the Iron Curtain. But even there it is being found that the tremendous competition of countries to get hold of export markets is very keen. We must not forget that countries of the Southern Hemisphere are competing with us in the Northern Hemisphere as far as food and other commodities are concerned because they are perhaps better geared to this, because their national policy is different. I have said that I do not want to discuss this. I do not want to attack the Government now on its policy, but because the policy of our rivals is different, they have succeeded in obtaining trade representation in infinitely far more countries than we have, and they are succeeding in selling to far more countries than we do, at prices which are comparable to ours. It is for that reason that I want to make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister. My time is running out.

Hear, hear!

It is a pity.

I am quite certain that the Government is in earnest about taking action in conjunction with the industries and the agricultural societies which in their turn have great responsibility as far as the exporting of their produce is concerned? I find that groups of trade representatives from Australia, up to 200 strong, are being sent to the northern countries to investigate markets. These matters must go hand in hand. I am not dealing with agriculture and industries now. I can discuss them with the time for that arrives. I am now dealing with the Government and the assistance which it can give to agriculture and industries in order to strengthen our trade representation abroad. I am doing this for the following specific reasons: In the first place, growth is imperative for South Africa. In the second place our balance of payments position has to be improved by means of exports, and not by means of negotiating foreign loans. In the third place we can only effect such growth if we employ all available workers.

Mr. Speaker, I listened most intently to the hon. member for East London City and his basic philosophy boils down to only one thing and that is that the Government must do this, that and every single thing as far as our exports are concerned. I also appreciate the fact that the hon. member for East London City was for many years the leader of a very influential group in South Africa, i.e. the wool farmers and their industry. In those days the hon. member had all the opportunities to further the interest of the wool farmers, etc., etc.

He did.

Yes, and we appreciate that. I want to tell the hon. member for East London North that what I appreciated most in those days, were those very nice french girls whose company I appreciated very much indeed. My basic philosophy is that we must not always look at the Government to do this, that and the other thing. No, I think that we must look at this whole issue from quite a different angle. Because that is the position, and this side of the House are not going to accept this motion.

*I therefore move as an amendment—

I think I should just mention in passing, and heaven knows it, that the hon. members opposite can really agree about nothing. There are two motions before the House today. The hon. member for East London City has just said that we must do everything possible to export, but a while ago, when another motion was under discussion, the hon. member for Walmer said that we are exporting beef while there is not enough in South Africa. At a later stage in my speech you will see that I differ with the hon. member for Walmer. Private initiative in the Argentine is willing to experience not only meatless days but even meatless weeks in order to go on exporting their product. However the hon. member wants everything that has to be done, to be done by the Government. I state unequivocally—later it will be seen that I do not want to deny the Government’s share in this—that it is in the first instance the task of the industrialist to encourage his exports and to achieve success with them. The industrialists in South Africa must take note that they themselves will have to roll up their sleeves in order to be able to continue in this way. The industrialist in South Africa will have to realize that the Government will have the necessary people posted throughout the world, but the industrialist will have to ensure that he himself has his own representatives in various parts of the world. Those representatives of the industry will in the first place have to have the necessary knowledge of its product and also knowledge of how to go about stimulating exports successfully how to make them possible and how to execute orders. In the second place our industrialists will have to realize that they must get away from this idea of the hon. member for East London City that the Government must help them every time. Those people whom we appoint abroad will have to be able to take on-the-spot decisions. When they get orders, they must have the authority to execute those orders.

In the third place the industrialist of South Africa must realize that, if one wants to export successfully, one must have continuity in the supply of one’s product. In the agricultural industry this is not so easy. I want to concede that. That continuity which we would so like to have, we cannot always have as regularly as we should like to, because of climatic factors and everything associated therewith. But that still does not say that it will be our control boards in particular that will make special endeavours, as they have in fact done, to negotiate these exports, as has been the case throughout the years. As regards the industrialist dealing in consumer goods, and agricultural goods in respect of which we are able to maintain continuity, for example wool and skins, it will be our own task to take the lead in negotiating and perpetuating these exports. After all, it is no secret—for the industrialist we do have the South African British Trade Association. This is an existing body and the industrialist who is worth his salt need only make use of it. We also have the South African Foreign Trade Organization. That organization is at our disposal. I think—if I am wrong, you may correct me—that this latter organization also receives Government support. But the industrialist himself, through this organization, should not allow himself to be talked into the frame of mind, as the hon. member for East London City wanted to do, that we must look to the Government to help us. Sir, the industrialist of South Africa must help himself. I shall try to prove to you that it is in fact possible to achieve tremendous heights by helping oneself. I also want to prove to you that if we think ourselves into a frame of mind that we must obtain help from someone else, we land ourselves in a position in which things will immediately go wrong.

*Sir, it is true. This frame of mind of the American that, even though he has a small part of the market only, he still has a big market, has resulted in the Americans being in the position, as far as their balance of payments is concerned, in which they find themselves today. I would just like to say for the record that I do not want to imply that this is the only factor causing the Americans to be in this position, but I do say that it is one of the most important.

Sir, let us now return to South Africa. We know that, if one wants to set about anything in South Africa, one must employ one’s own energies. I am referring to the Rupert International Organization. That is an organization which was built up in South Africa without any State aid and which is today one of the strongest and biggest in the world. I just want to tell my friends opposite that they must not think for a moment that everything was handed to this organization on a silver plate. No, the British American Tobacco Corporation is one of the most powerful organizations in the world. Their subsidiary in South Africa, the United Tobacco Corporation—we mention their names, because they are public companies and there is nothing wrong with it—is a big organization, too, and the man who is to set about anything like that must know what he is doing. But private initiative came along and set about these things and today we can look with great pride at everything these people were able to do on their own initiative. Throughout the years, of course, these people have had the support of our commercial attachés, wherever they may be. That goes without saying. These people did not allow themselves to become caught up in this philosophy that one must obtain State support in order to achieve success. I also want to tell our industrialists in South Africa today that we have referred to this one firm and that it must be a lesson to us. As far as our wool is concerned, the moment has arrived when our leaders in the field of wool will have to think in terms of joining hands with organizations throughout the world in order to have a share in the processing of our product to the benefit of the product itself, of our country and of the individual. We must get away from the idea which I now want to illustrate to hon. members by way of example. A very prominent Briton was in South Africa a short time ago. He put the following question: “Will it pay to invest in our homelands today?” The answer he received, was that investment in the homelands today was “more idealistic than capitalistic”. And what does that mean? That only meant that the time was past when—and I believe that we are not referring to one single living Briton today—a great power can come to a continent to exploit everything there is to be exploited, take the profits for itself and then leave that colony or continent or whatever, in a state of neglect. In this way our neighbour Basutoland, near which I live, was exploited. After 100 years of British rule that country is in the condition in which it finds itself today. Now the investors here and overseas will have to be prepared to invest there—this goes for South Africa and also for anywhere else—and such investors will have to be prepared to share in the prosperity of such an undertaking. In that way we can strengthen ourselves and stimulate our exports.

In conclusion I should just like to tell the hon. member for East London City that we have the “external trade representatives of the Republic of South Africa”. Here we have a long list of those people. I will concede that we do not cover all countries as we should like to, but the hon. member himself mentioned that, as chairman of the Wool Board at that time, doors were open to him which were not open to Governments. That is the very point with which I should like to conclude, i.e. that business people do not like having business dealings with governments if they can have them with private people. Therefore I wish to conclude by saying to our people and to the industrialists of South Africa that it is our task to go forward, to do what we can and to take cognisance with appreciation of what our hon. Minister and our Government, the officials of the department and our foreign representatives are doing in that respect. I think that if we have all that, everything bodes well for the future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Smithfield moved an amendment which in fact amounts to a motion of: We thank the Minister. What is the real meaning of his amendment? Does it mean that the hon. member for Smithfield is quite satisfied with the present position regarding our foreign export trade? Is he quite satisfied that there should be absolutely no institutional changes and that the present position is quite satisfactory? If this is how he feels, and is of the opinion that no improvements are necessary, I should like to refer him to the report of the Reynders Commission which was published recently, because this report, which was compiled by a group of experts, differs altogether from the view held by the hon. member for Smithfield. I shall come back to this point at a later stage.

† Mr. Speaker, I think one should start one’s contribution to this debate by paying tribute to the Reynders Commission for the remarkable job they have done on a very complex subject in a very short space of time. The whole problem of South Africa’s export and import relationships, more particularly the problems that lie ahead of us in connection with our foreign exports, is a most complex one and has not been made less complex by reason of changes in world currencies, instability of monetary systems and, in particular, the recent entry of Great Britain into the Common Market. I believe that the Reynders Commission, in taking on this massive task as late as July, 1971, have in a remarkably short time encompassed a very wide range of information, knowledge and opinions and have produced a report which is a remarkable document and one which will serve as a solid foundation for the further development of our export trade. I must confess that I have not read the whole report, but I have read the summary and some chapters. The Reynders Commission refers, on page 639, para. 55, specifically to the question which is the subject of this afternoon’s motion. What they say is this—

I hope the hon. member for Smithfield is listening.

Yes, I am.

I quote further—

This is what the Reynders Commission had to say. It goes on and in a later paragraph, paragraph 57 on page 640, they deal with the following matters. I want the hon. member for Smithfield to promise me that he will read it.

I have read it, but I do not believe in everything.

The commission gave considerable thought to the principles on which reorganization of official export services should be based and concluded with the following—

1. (a) A significant degree of involvement by the Cabinet as well as by the private sector in export and export promotion;
2. (b) A concentration as far as possible of export promotional activity in one body;
3. (c) Co-ordination, co-operation and liaison between the various Government and semi-Government bodies as statutory organizations and between them and the private sector; and
4. (d) A higher status, new image, a minimum of reorganization and an extension of personnel as well as an increased budgetary provision and greater freedom from the restrictions imposed by certain civil service administrative policies, practices and procedures for the Export Promotion Division of the Department of Commerce.

I do not know how to say it more clearly than the Reynders Commission has done. This is all we are pleading for. We have not come to this House to attack the hon. the Minister; we have not come to this House to attack the hon. member for Smithfield. We have come here to plead in the interests of improved exports for South Africa that certain fundamental changes should be made and we are supported up to the hilt by the Reynders Commission.

When we look at the Common Market as a field of special endeavour, there are certain things that need to be urgently done on a massive and systematic basis. If one goes, for example, to the market at Rungis near Paris, which has replaced the central market at Les Halles, one finds vast layouts on modem lines of a market designed to serve a public of some ten million people. This is a large market and anyone who is effective inside this market has already got a major place in which he can dispose of South African products. If one goes there he will find that the Israelis for example show how this thing should be done. In the central administrative block of Rungis market, the Israelis occupy a floor and they have experts there, all of whom have been trained in French marketing techniques, have worked in France, and have contacts in France and all its ministries. They are connected daily by telex to Israel with which they communicate after doing a tour of the market each day. They report back to Israel daily on the condition of the market, the nature of the prices, the shortages, the demand and in particular on the condition of Israeli products. They have authority to remove without more ado from the market any Israeli products which fall below standard. This constant surveillance has placed Israel in a winning export position in that important market. I’ll give another example of what they have done. They have promoted in the whole of Western Europe the avocado pear. The avocado pear used to be regarded as a rather exotic fruit in Europe. The Israelis have conducted a campaign by means of which they persuaded every hotel, restaurant, and chef that what is needed on the menu is avocado pear in some form or other.

Avocado is sexy.

They have sold this thing to the extent that it is difficult to travel through Europe and to eat in any place of high quality and not find avocado pears. And those avocado pears are Israeli avocado pears. They went into a market which did not exist. They created the market and they are now filling that market.

We have our seasonal advantages in South Africa—the advantages of the Southern Hemisphere. What we cannot do in the Common Market is to go into competition against the European producer in products where we have no seasonal advantage, in other words, to compete in the same products where there is no seasonal advantage.

I was speaking to a South African farmer at Elgin only a couple of days ago. He is an apple farmer and he was in trouble. What he is now doing is to cultivate raspberries. He has planted several acres and they are growing well. He has flown to London himself and has found a number of buyers. In fact, he has had a wild success. He is coming back to plant as many raspberries as he can. These berries are an example of a short seasonal fruit where the Southern Hemisphere season is different from the Northern Hemisphere season and the South African can go in and sell. These are, however, exceptional cases. There are many of our exporters who are small men and who need help. They cannot do these things themselves. They cannot do their own market research, market studies, market organization and maintain salesmen abroad or travel constantly themselves. They need the help of the Government. This is what this motion is about. We ask the Government to organize assistance to our producers to advise them what to grow, to point out market trends to them and to help them get into a market which, believe me, still offers enormous opportunities to South African producers. This will, however, not be the case if they simply export what they are traditionally accustomed to grow and expect to get away with it when this is in conflict with the policies of the Common Market and its own producers. A great deal of thought has to be given to improve techniques and the approach to this whole problem.

I want in the short time available to me to indicate by way of an example, more than anything else, a somewhat fantastic suggestion which I do not necessarily support. It, however, indicates the kind of thinking that is necessary. The year before last I myself travelled through the Common Market and some other countries. A suggestion was made to me on several occasions that the Southern Hemisphere in order to supply the Northern Hemisphere with perishable goods, fruits, and so forth, might consider developing the airship once again. This sounds fantastic. The problem at the moment is that aeroplanes carry these goods at high costs and in quantities of mostly tens of tons. Refrigerated ships carry them by the thousands of tons but slowly and the effects of refrigeration do cause the quality to deteriorate to some extent. The airship, this Jules Vernesque idea, is something which would fly to Europe in about four or five days. It would carry hundreds of tons. It provides its own refrigeration when it flies at a certain height. The failures of the airship in the past were due to the fact that they used heavy steel, canvas or cotton envelopes and hydrogen which is inflammable.

Today we have modern light jet engines, plastics for the fabric, light alloys for a steel framework and, instead of hydrogen, helium, which is a non-inflammable gas. It is theoretically feasible to construct these giant carriers which can convey our goods in increasing quantities cheaply to Europe. There will be no problems about landing; you moor them to a mast and the goods go straight down into the market by lift. There are, of course, navigational and design problems. But this is not entirely out of the question. Not very long ago I was talking to a German aircraft development firm and they told me that they were in fact working on the revival of the airship as a cargo carrier for the new age.

Sir, I am not suggesting that we should all rush out of this House and go and build an airship; the problem is not as simple as that. I mention this by way of illustration to show that imaginative thinking, research, development and participation by the Government on a broad basis, with a grasp of the problems involved, and the volumes involved in the future, is the kind of leadership that is needed and the kind of co-ordination that is needed. The individual growers cannot do this. I agree fully with the hon. member for Smithfield that a great deal must depend on private initiative and that it is wrong for everybody to sit back and hope that the Government is going to run the whole thing. But, Sir, there are certain things which only the Government can do. There are certain things which require institutional guidance and leadership, and in these matters we look to the Government. I very much hope, Sir, that the recommendations of the Reynders Commission will receive the very earnest attention of the Government and that the subject matter of the motion today in particular will receive the urgent and special attention of the Government, because there is a great lack of proper coordination of our export drive overseas.

The hon. member for Von Brandis began his speech by asking the hon. member for Smithfield whether he was quite satisfied—he used the term “perfectly satisfied”—that we had done everything in our power and that we were doing everything in our power to promote our exports. Sir, my answer to that—and I think that I can also speak on behalf of the hon. member for Smithfield— is immediately “no”.

Of course.

We are not perfectly satisfied, but we are thankful for what has already been done, and that is why we have proposed this amendment which the hon. member for Smithfield has framed so ably. Of course we are not perfectly satisfied. After all, Sir, who appointed the Reynders Commission? It was this Government which appointed the Reynders Commission, and why was it appointed? In the terms of reference of the Commission it was stated very clearly that this Commission was to investigate ways and means in which we could promote our exports. I repeat that we are not perfectly satisfied, and that is why we are doing certain things and why this Government appointed the Reynders Commission to investigate ways and means in which we could promote our exports. It stands to reason that this Government fully realizes the necessity for the export of industrial products, raw materials, etc., because no one realizes better than does this Government that our major export product, namely gold, is getting less and less.

We are all taking note with great interest and gratitude of the fact that the world has at last come to its senses and has realized that the role of gold has not ended: that the world has at last come to its senses and no longer takes any notice of the so-called official price of gold. We are grateful for that, but in spite of the fact that we are seeing how gold is once again playing its rightful role in the world, in spite of the fact that we realize that the higher gold price will enable us to mine lower-grade ore and that the mining of gold may now continue for so much longer and that the export of gold will play a so much greater role in our exports, we are still very well aware that we shall in the future have to rely more and more on exports of our industrial products, raw materials, agricultural produce and minerals. It is for the very reason that this Government is so well aware of the fact that these exports will have to play an ever greater role, that it appointed the Reynders Commission. And, what is more, it has already begun to give effect to recommendations contained in the interim report of the Reynders Commission. Surely one cannot expect that, so soon after the Reynders Commission made its report, this Government should immediately say that it will accept and implement all the recommendations made by the Commission. But the Government has in fact already implemented in part some of the recommendations of the interim report.

The hon. member for Von Brandis jeeringly asked whether the hon. member for Smithfield had ever read this report. Of course we on this side of the House have read the report. Now I wish to refer the hon. member for Von Brandis to the table on page 287 of the first part of the report, where the Reynders Commission indicated that although the amount budgeted as the contribution to export financing in 1972-’73 was R1 125 000, the Government has since then already agreed to this amount being increased to R6 million. I want to stress, Sir, that this Government is responsible for this Commission being appointed, and that it will certainly not just push aside the report of its own Commission. It will of course take time to implement the report, but I am convinced that the Government will give the most careful attention to the report which its own Commission has published for it, and whereas it has already begun to implement the interim report, I have every confidence that it will also go further.

Now I do not want to suggest for one moment that the Government will accept all the recommendations. The hon. member for Von Brandis spoke of institutional changes. There are, of course, various schools of thought concerning these institutional changes. For example, Australia’s approach to export promotion differs from that of all the other Western countries. In Australia it is not Government officials who conduct export promotion, but a body which recruits people from the private sector to go overseas for the purpose of conducting export promotion for a contract period of three years. There is possibly a great deal to be said for that. They are people who are drawn from private industry, people who are fully conversant with industries in general and their problems and with the quality of products, and so on, but up to the present no other country has followed Australia’s example. That part of the report which was quoted by the hon. member for Von Brandis, probably refers to the conditions which prevail in Australia, because it repeatedly quoted the position in Australia. But there is no doubt that this report will be studied very thoroughly, and if it should then appear to be necessary or possible to follow another institutional pattern, that will be done. But I want to repeat that no other country in the West has up to the present time followed Australia’s example in regard to that institutional bias. There must decidedly be major objections to it as well, and that is why the other countries the West have so far not copied it.

Both gentlemen of the Opposition who have spoken so far, have stressed the fact that we can do so much more. On behalf of this side of the House I wish to admit immediately that much more can be done to promote exports, but now we are saddled with the problem that it is in fact that side of the House which, when we increase State expenditure, is continually casting it in our teeth that we must curb State expenditure. As a matter of fact, I wonder how the hon. member for East London City managed to get that motion of his through his caucus. I wonder how it was that they gave him permission to move that motion. [Interjections.] After all, it is common knowledge that the hon. the main speaker on financial and economic affairs on that side, the hon. member for Park-town, and the Leader of the Opposition have repeatedly cast it in the teeth of this side of the House that the Government must curb its own expenditure. However, the hon. member for East London City has said that we can do much more. We agree that we can do much more, but will he not on a future occasion say that the State is spending too much? Because this is so and because this Government is continually aware that it must not simply throw money around wildly, it is continually engaged in determining its priorities. It is also continually engaged in determining its priorities as far as the promotion of exports is concerned. Incidentally, I have the Afrikaans text of the motion before me and I wondered what the difference was between “kommersiële” (commercial) and “handels-verteenwoordiging” (trade representation). Before a government decides that trade representatives are to be appointed in a particular country, it must consider very carefully whether, in the first instance, it is economical, in the second instance, whether the import potential of that country justifies the appointment of trade representatives, and, in the third instance, whether its exporters can meet the demand. The hon. member for East London City dwelt at length on the tremendous potential which exists in the East with Red China’s 800 million people and the other countries scattered around it, resulting in a buyer’s market of approximately 2 000 million people. Before a country appoints trade representatives, it must very carefully consider the three factors which I have mentioned. I want to ask the hon. member what he wants to export to Red China.

United Party supporters!

But then, surely, there will be none left. Surely there are not so many of them that they can be exported. [Interjections.] A wise government must continually determine its priorities and ascertain whether it is worth the trouble to appoint trade representatives in a country. The hon. member for East London City has pleaded that we should appoint many more trade representatives in the East. I want to point out to the hon. member that our traditional marketing area has always been Europe. In the first instance, Europe is so much nearer to us, and since the custom has developed to increase freight charges every six months, we must of course give very careful attention to the distance over which our export goods are to be conveyed. Because Europe is so much nearer, it is much more important to have strong trade representation in Europe, as we do in fact have, rather than to appoint all of a sudden a large number of representatives in the East. When we have regard to the tremendous increase in freight charges, I grow cold and foresee that we shall find it more and more difficult to export. Therefore I say it is perfectly correct for us to confine our attention in the first instance to markets nearer home. Here, of course, Africa is the first place that comes to mind, and then Europe.

But I would also like to express a few thoughts concerning the task of the exporter himself, as was in fact done by my hon. friend the member for Smithfield. It is of course a fact that the Government is doing a great deal through its trade representation to promote our exports, but the exporter himself, either as an individual or as a member of certain organizations, also has a very important task. I have in mind an organization such as the K.W.V., which has its own office in London, and which is doing a tremendous job of work in promoting our exports there. I have in mind the Deciduous Fruit Board and the Citrus Board, both of which have their own offices in London and employ a considerable staff for promoting exports there. But an endless amount can still be done by various exporters, either as individuals or as organizations, to promote exports.

A few friends of mine visited Europe last year, and among other things they visited the international food show in Paris. We all know that the Government makes available all the necessary facilities for exhibiting our wares there in order that they may be sold. At that international food show our Government leased a great deal of space to enable our exporters to exhibit their products there and to find buyers. It went further. It addressed letters to 83 export organizations and invited them to make use of these facilities to exhibit their products there. The Government provides the space, the furnishings, the shelving, etc. It pays for the electricity used. All the exporter must do is to exhibit his products there. But what reaction did we get! Of the 83 organizations approached, only 21 considered it to be worth the trouble to reply to those letters—and that after an overseas trade representative on home leave had personally approached these exporters and beseeched and implored them to make use of the facilities which the Government was making available to them there for advertising their wares. Only 21 replied—the number who exhibited was not 21! Eventually there were only a few oranges, which of course shrivelled up in due course. Not one of the others make use of these facilities which the Government had made available for advertising their products and promoting exports.

There are other ways in which exporters can serve their own cause. Thirteen years ago, when I was still a back-bencher, I pleaded that our exporters would have to act far more rationally and that they would also have to develop the market on the continent of Europe. If they wished to do that, they should of course attempt to develop that market by making use of the languages of those countries in which they wished to promote exports. A certain organization, which I named at that time, complied this year for the first time, after 13 years, with that request which I made at that time. How on earth, Mr. Speaker, can one conduct sales promotion in a country if one does so in a foreign language? Obviously one must do it in the language of the country in which one wishes to sell one’s products. If Japan advertised its cars here in Japanese, who would look at them? We cannot understand Japanese. Who can conduct sales promotion in a country if one does so in a foreign language? What have we been doing all these years? We have been trying to promote sales in Germany, France, Switzerland, Holland and Scandinavia, in English. It is time our exporters also came to their senses and realized that one cannot try to persuade a country in a foreign language. Obviously one must do so in its own language.

There is another matter which I touched on at that time, namely that of weights and measures. We tried to sell fruit on the continental market in pounds. The people of the continent are not conversant with pounds; they are used to kilograms. However, we have been selling it in pounds all these years. We do not want to visualize the situation of the customer and we forget the first important lesson to be learnt in trade, namely that the customer is always right. Now, fortunately, we have also accepted the metric system and that problem has solved itself. But why do we always run to the Government to remedy these matters for us, while we ourselves can and must and shall remedy them?

Having said all these things, I now want to acknowledge immediately that the entry of Great Britain into the European Common Market implies major problems for our exporters, and particularly for the exporters of agricultural products. But here, too, this Government immediately proceeded to appoint one of its most senior diplomats, Dr. Naudé, at the headquarters of Euromart in Brussels, to keep a weather eye open and to establish the necessary contacts in order to enable us to enter into negotiations with the Euromart headquarters so as to alleviate and cope with those problems arising after Britain’s entry. These problems are formidable indeed, because the import duty, the so-called “tariff” which the Common Market imposes, has no scientific basis. Those import tariffs are based on the amount of the highest tariff—before the Treaty of Rome in 1957—imposed by any of the members of Euro-mart. That has resulted in there being no scientific basis for these tariffs. It therefore goes without saying that we must leave no stone unturned in trying to effect at least a change in these tariffs, even though we may be unable to have them abolished completely. Now, with the entry of Britain into Euromart, Britain experienced problems with its own apple and pear farmers. For this reason it requested additional protection in the form of a transitional period of five years for its apple and pear farmers. This has had the effect that our farmers have also been adversely affected by it. For example, we must pay R1-15 on pears, R1-85 on apples, plus the import tariff of 10%. The tariff on grapes is 18%, on peaches 22%, on appricots 24% and on plums 10%. All these things will make things extremely difficult for our exporters. But I want to repeat that in conjunction with the various industries the Government is thoroughly looking into these problems and it will solve those problems as far as possible for our various industries. It is for that reason that I support so wholeheartedly the amendment of my hon. friend, in which we want to express our thanks for what the Government has already done, for what it is still doing and for what we believe it will do in the future for our industries and for our export.

Mr. Speaker, having regard to the fact that all speakers on this side of the House have stressed that neither are we endeavouring to attack the Minister nor the Government nor departmental officials, I am a little puzzled as to why the hon. member for Paarl seems to have lost his cool. At least from the hon. member for Smithfield we had his usual calm and charm. It has been suggested to me that perhaps the hon. member for Paarl should have come in under the more ebullient and effervescent agricultural motion which preceded this motion. Alternatively, perhaps he is speaking under the wrong motion and is supporting the hon. member for Carltonville in his motion that comes before the House on the 9th March, namely that this House expresses its appreciation to the Government for the guidance it has given and the measures it has taken in combating inflation. As far back as 1957 Prof. Ralph Horwitz wrote a little pamphlet entitled “Expand or Explode; Export or Bust”. He expressed the viewpoint that only expanding industrialization and agricultural capacity could possibly contain a racial explosion. Our motion is couched in the interests of the economy and of South Africa as a whole, as a unit. The need for positive and constructive steps to improve our export position is highlighted by a study of the statistics as set out in the December, 1972, Bulletin of Statistics. This is my authority for the figures I wish to quote. I think we cannot be complacent with regard to the situation which faces this country unless we do secure alternate markets in the place of the European Common Market, to cover the losses which we may suffer and unless we in any case secure new markets in order to take up our agricultural surpluses and also our manufacturing capacity. The relevant figures were that in 1969, 1970 and 1971 we imported into South Africa R2 128 million, R2 540 million and R2 878 million respectively. What do we find is the position with our exports if we extract the impact that gold sales have? We then find that our merchandise exports, including agricultural products, only benefited the economy to the extent of R1 530 million, R1 533 million and R1 540 million respectively up to 1971. So, without our gold, you will see that our balance of payments position becomes quite untenable and we will have to suffer a lowering of standards for all our peoples unless by energy, enthusiasm and efficiency we can secure additional markets in the fields referred to by the hon. member for East London City. If we break down these exports, we find that to date we have relied heavily on the United Kingdom and the Common Market countries Belgium, Luxembourg, France, the Fedral Republic of Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, for almost 50% of our exports have been routed to those countries, making a grand total of R760 million in 1971. It is interesting to note that our exports to the Americas and Canada, collectively, were only R166 million, to Africa R292 million, to Asia R230 million and to Oceania—i.e. Austrialia and New Zealand—R16 million. Quite clearly, we have to face the problem that because of the threat that we may lose the markets in the European community, we must become more aggressive. My colleague, the hon. member for Von Brandis, has dealt in some detail with the situation of our trading with the Common Market. It would appear that the primary producers in the agricultural sector will be the first to suffer in the short period, but over the longer period—and I believe this will be the case—the enormous market which is being created by the 250 million population group constituting the E.E.C., will enable us to make a comeback. I think it is not so much a threat in the short-term, but a challenge to our ability to hold our world markets in the future.

My hon. colleague, the mover of the motion which is now before the House, has pinpointed the many opportunities which we are losing in our world markets. I have here a list of our trade representatives in many important markets. In Brazil we have only a councillor (mining) and a consul (commercial). In the Republic of China we have only a consul (commercial) and so on. These market could all be strengthened by more aggressive representation which would give us the sort of government facilities that the hon. member for Von Brandis has mentioned Israel has in the Paris market. I believe that South Africa offers a more exciting future as a country with an economic prospect than many others. If we have regard to our fantastic untapped reservoir of labour upon which we can fall back, our climatic conditions and our mineral resources, we do not have to think small, but we can think big. In fact I believe that South Africa could not only become the workshop for the world, given an improvement in productivity which could be related to the productive output of either Canada or in Europe, but we could also become the Common Market for Africa and what is more we could become the Japan of the next decade. We have everything in our favour if we are not held back by a reluctant Government.

This motion has made reference to the difficulties which South African industrialists and farmers are experiencing owing to the problems of being removed from the Common Market. These problems are very real. I want to make one comment. We have the answer in our own hands. It is interesting to note that the Common Market arose from a realization that a thousand years of warring between the tribes in Europe and ultimately the nations could not go on if Europe was to survive in the face of the tremendous economic blocks which had been created in America in the West and in Russia, China and Japan in the East. The six major nations of Europe came together in order to break down national boundaries to create new freedom of movement for entrepreneurial skills, for labour, for capital and for materials. Arising out of this decision they have created a market which, now that Britain has entered that market, has created the largest trading bloc in the world, consisting of 250 million persons. They did so, hon. members will note, by coming together and not by breaking away. They realized that if they were to exist in a competitive world and if they were to export to other countries they had to have the economies of scale, the economies of size and of capital. This is the tragedy that faces our country in contradistinction. What do we find? From a once-strong consolidated economy, this Government’s policy is to fragment the economy, to tribalize it, to balkanize it. Whereas the whole of the rest of the world is realizing that strength lies in power, unity is strength, we have as a policy a desire to break down, not such a tremendously large economy, into a number of separate non-viable units. This is what is making our position more difficult.

The immediate threat to our economy as far as our loss in the short term in the European Economic Community is concerned, lies without doubt in the economy of the Cape Western Province. It is our fruit industry, our canned vegetable industry and our wine industry that will take the biggest knock and it is these industries that we have to protect in the short period. We can only do so if we are conscious of the fact that, as was mentioned by one of the main speakers of yesterday in a maiden speech, we are a world with an exploding population that is eternally hungry. Therefore with our agricultural products, our base metals, our minerals, all of which are needed to build up nations that are underdeveloped, we need have no fear. All we need is imagination, imagination to see the opportunity and determination to take the gap. As has been said before today, one cannot do this merely with private enterprise. The entree at Government level, the creating of a correct economic climate linked with political alliances, can only come from well-staffed embassies and well-staffed legations. The dangers of putting a square peg in a round hole as far as appointment at embassies and consulates are concerned have been shown up all too blantly and tragically only yesterday in the case of our Embassy at Rome. We plead for the selection of the right personnel to be placed in the right organizations and to be given the freedom and encouragement which will enable them to make friends and not enemies. These are the objectives which this resolution before this House is seeking, namely that we should investigate with speed and a sense of urgency every possible and new outlet for our growing manufacturing enterprise. It has been said over and over again that unless we can enable our manufacturers to enjoy the economics of size and scale, unless we can improve our productivity and reduce our unit costs, how are we to compete with the new vast economies which have arisen in the E.E.C., America and the East. We cannot compel our manufacturers to put in the necessary capital equipment to develop the economies of scale and size while they can only rely on a local market potential of three million European peoples. Until we can bring along our non-European people to create an economy of some 20 million peoples, our manufacturers and our farmers have to look to outside sources. Just as the door of the E.E.C. is being closed so we must open new doors. We can do this. There is every indication that we can be proud of our standards of manufacture; we can be proud of the quality of our agricultural products. Our markets, I believe, do lie in Africa; they can be won. They do also lie in the Middle East and they can be won. They are also in the Far East. Hundreds of millions of persons in those areas are waiting patiently for improved living standards. All we ask and all we move which is the main intention with this motion, is that the Government take active steps to improve and increase representation at trade level in every potential country where we can find entry.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens started off very nicely and we agree with him that we must obtain more markets. I think he spoilt his whole speech by his reference to a reluctant Government. This Government is not a reluctant Government. This Government understand the whole position and is very anxious to get more markets. The hon. member also made a personal innuendo about our ambassador in Rome. I think that further spoilt his speech; he should not have done that. This debate has been conducted on a very high level up to now. I think it is just about too much to drag politics into a debate which should be conducted on a high level with the interests of South Africa at heart.

*We shall always have problems concerning exports; this is no easy task. The Government appointed the Reynders Commission and I wish to associate myself with those who have congratulated the Reynders Commission on the work that has been done. They performed a major task and I am sure that this report will for many years be a reference work for students of the export trade, and also for our industrialists and our agricultural producers.

The hon. member for Von Brandis quoted a piece from this report which does not really convey the spirit of the report. I want to quote a paragraph in which the spirit of the report is very well conveyed. It appears on page 668 and reads as follows—

That was the final conclusion in this report. That shows us that the private sector has not done enough yet. This appears in the report time and again I want to give members of the United Party the assurance that we are studying this report very carefully and that we appreciate it very much. I want to talk about agricultural products in particular because the E.C.M. was mentioned in the motion of the United Party as well as in our amendment. We have problems with the E.C.M., of course. I want to adopt the standpoint that our agricultural control boards have, in the past, done to a large extent what is being recommended by the Reynders Commission now. They have worked in close collaboration with the Government and have, on their own initiative, given effect to most of the recommendations contained in the report. I may just mention that the Karakul Board for example has professional advertising agents in 14 different countries who attend to the marketing and publicising of Swakaras. They attend to liaison work, advertisements, fashion shows, films, television and so forth. The total expenditure in this respect is R1 049 000. It is a large amount, which indicates that the Board appreciates the value of advertising. In referring to the Wool Board now, I probably do not know as much about it as the hon. member for East London City does. I would however like to quote a few statistics for the record.

You know more about it, man.

The contribution of the Republic towards the International Wool Secretariat is R3 292 000 out of a total expenditure by the Wool Secretariat of R16 250 000. They have branches in 24 countries. They have promotion campaigns to publicise the woolmark and the wool blend mark symbols. They develop new processes in laboratories. They have fashion services in London for men and in Paris for the ladies. They even have a workshop in Delft for knitting development where knitting patterns and so forth are tested in order to be introduced to manufacturers.

Then we have the K.W.V. The hon. member for Paarl has already referred to it. Last year they spent R213 000 on advertising. Most of it was spent in Canada with the intention of developing a market there.

The Deciduous Fruit Board plans to spend R1 228 000 during 1972-’73 in respect of advertising. Now we know that our apple producers in particular will be faced with major difficulties in the near future. The import duty on apples has been fixed by the E.C.M. at R2-15 per carton. This is a tremendously high figure. It is so high that it will be almost impossible for our farmers to sell their apples there. Fortunately, there is a provision that this amount will be reduced after five years. In this connection I want to make a plea to the Government. If the apple farmers find that this tremendously high duty by the E.C.M. makes things difficult for them during the first few years, it may perhaps be necessary for the Government to lend a hand. But in the meantime the Deciduous Fruit Board have not let the grass grow under their feet: they have sent people overseas; they have made contact in the United Kingdom with a very large organization, Home Grown Fruits, and have entered into an agreement with them for our apples to be exported in bulk, that this organization will then repack the apples in smaller containers and then deliver them direct to the retail trade. In this way the D.F.B. hopes to recover the ground lost because of the import duty. It is also true, Sir, that the higher standard of living which resulted from England’s joining the E.C.M., has caused prices to rise. Last year the prices of our fresh fruit in England were higher than ever before.

Then I come to the Citrus Board, in which I am interested. I think they have developed a model marketing organization overseas. This year they are spending R2 186 000 on advertising. Sir, they have many fine schemes, for example, the Out-span girls, very pretty South African girls, who go there to advertise our fruit. Why did they do that, Sir? [Interjections.]

Order! Whence the sudden interest?

About seven years ago the citrus farmers decided that they themselves must do something about marketing. They did not look to the Government to help them. They appointed marketing consultants at great expense. At that time it cost them more than R100 000. They appointed these marketing consultants, and they carried out the plans the marketing consultants submitted to them.

Sir, may I ask a question? The hon. member says that he has taken a great interest in the question of citrus. Has he made representations, for instance to the hon. the Minister of Transport, about the rates on export citrus?

We hope that this reduction in rates is also going to apply to citrus, but I must tell the hon. member that at the moment, we are paying, on our export citrus, only one-third of the rate payable on local fruit. We have already got a very good rebate.

*Sir, I believe that the example set by the citrus industry should go very far. If these plans they have made are pursued, then it will help a great deal to find overseas markets for agricultural products. I should like to refer to the exhibition in Paris where a large amount of fruit and many products were exhibited. Unfortunately an error was made. The citrus which was exhibited there, had wilted. The citrus industry subsequently instituted a very thorough investigation. Experience has taught us that this kind of exhibition is of very little value. The advice furnished by the economic advisers eliminates the middle man; it eliminates auctions, and the citrus board has done this, and today they sell direct to the retail trade. The eliminate auctions altogether. They lay down a fixed price and insist on getting it. Sir, I believe that we shall get very far with this method. Today it is not easy to sell overseas. We live in a time of specialization when everyone must be an expert in his field. How can one expect an official in an embassy to be an expert on 110 different products? Sir, I believe that if we accept the advice of that commission and if each one of us puts his shoulder to the wheel, we shall have great success with our exports.

Mr. Speaker, I am rather disappointed that the hon. members opposite have not seen fit to support the original motion moved by the hon. member for East London City, but have seen fit to move their own amendment. The motion has been put forward as a constructive resolution to help the export trade of South Africa, and to have moved an amendment such as we have before the House is, I think, completely unrealistic in the circumstances of this debate, as also, I think, were some of the arguments used to support the amendment. The resolution we have before this House, I believe, touches at the very heart of one of the most important economic problems which face South Africa and one of the most difficult problems that we have to solve. The hon. member for East London City quoted at length from the report of the Reynders Commission in respect of the need we have in South Africa to develop our export trade if we are going to be able to grow economically as a nation in the future. I think both sides of this House realize how important economic growth is if we are going to solve our social and racial problems. On developing and expanding exports in future is going to depend on our ability to import machinery, plant and raw materials which can be used for the development of our country. This motion before the House, because the debate is necessarily a fairly short one, confines itself to one aspect of the solution to the problem of increasing exports. I propose to deal with this question before the House, of strengthening our trade and commercial representation, from one particular angle, but I hope that in doing so I shall be able to put forward suggestions which may be of assistance to the Minister and his department.

Although the general trend in South Africa is for the State to play a greater part in the economic activities of the country and a greater part in its productive activities, it is still true to say that we are basically a private enterprise country. I think both sides of the House support wholeheartedly the principle of private enterprise. That being so, it is true to say that it is private enterprise that manufactures and produces the majority of the products capable of being exported. As it is private enterprise that does this, we have to realize that that private enterprise is motivated primarily by the profit motive, and it will only be moved to export, it will only be moved to take the necessary steps to find export markets, if it is profitable for it to do so. That is a fact of economic life. It is no use exhorting people to export; it has to be profitable for them to export. There are some industries, fortunately important industries, in South Africa where it is profitable for them to export or where their very existence depends on their being able to export. Diamonds, for instance, are exported because practically the whole of the diamond market is in the export field. The same applies very largely to wool, sugar, the citrus industry and the deciduous fruit industry, and, when we have surpluses, the maize industry. It applies to the fruit canning industry and to the fish canning industry. Coal owners would like to export—they do export to some extent—because they have the capacity to do so profitably if the necessary transport and harbour facilities were available. In other cases businesses export because they can get better prices in the export field than they can in the local field. I refer, for instance, to fishmeal and rock-lobster exporters, and so I could go on. The point which I am making in this regard is that as far as these industries are concerned it is in their interest to export. They make profits out of exporting. They make money out of exporting and because that is the case, you can rely on them to make the necessary arrangements to find their own export markets. Certainly, they would be helped by a strengthening of our trade representation, but as far as they are concerned, that strengthening would be on a general and geographical basis.

It is a completely different cup of tea when we come to those industries which are orientated towards the domestic market. It is in respect of those industries that we need strong trade representation abroad if they are going to develop export markets. There are many of such industries. I would say that virtually the whole secondary industry in this country falls into the category of industries that are domestic market orientated. The consumer industries in this country are domestic market orientated. Take the clothing industry for example. It is one of our biggest industries. Certainly isolated manufacturers in the clothing industry do export, but on the whole the industry does not and, in fact, the great majority of manufacturers in the industry do not. The same applies to most manufacturers in the producer goods industries, those manufacturers which make goods used in other industries, the mining industry and so forth. I refer to the engineering industry for instance. Those industries, again, are domestic market orientated. There are various natural reasons why they should be so orientated. On the whole the South African market is a comparatively small one, with the result that manufacturers in it on the whole and by world standards are relatively small manufacturers. They produce a wide variety of goods. Their production runs on the whole are relatively small, but at the same time, being orientated towards the market, they do make good profits by selling to the local market and they do on the whole enjoy growth. What incentive therefore is there for them to go to considerable expense to develop export markets where their products would be subjected to considerably severer competition than they experience in the local market? If those industries which are not exporting are to export, they are not going to do so oft their own bat. They are going to do so only if they receive considerable sales promotion and marketing aid, but sales promotion and marketing aid of a particular type that will suit their particular industry.

The trade advisers and the professional officers that we have under the Department of Commerce do perform a very valuable job, but it is by the very nature of their job and by the very nature of the fact that there are comparatively few of them spread over a very wide geographical area that their work must be of a general rather than a specialized nature. If we are to open up markets for those industries which are not motivated to do so for themselves, we need not general men; we need men with specialized skills, specialized knowledge of the industries they are trying to work for, specialized training and specialized experience.

I think a very good example of what I have in mind is what is being done for the tourist industry by SATOUR. Within a very limited budget, a budget of less than R2 million, SATOUR is doing a first-class job of promoting the tourist industry of this country. It has a team of dedicated experts who do an expert job. The job that SATOUR is doing cannot be done by the individual units such as the hotels in the tourist industry. Individual hotels neither have the incentive to do this for themselves nor, except in a few cases, do they have the financial resources. I doubt whether even if the hotel industry as a whole got together and made a combined effort it could do as well as SATOUR does. I have personal experience of trying to get the hotel industry together and I know the difficulties of their working together when it entails putting their hands into their pockets.

I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that one of the most effective ways of opening up new markets for industries which are not exporting at present would be, first of all, to select industries, on a very selective basis, which are producing goods that are likely to be acceptable in export markets and then, after careful market surveys, to select markets where those goods are likely to be acceptable and, working in conjunction with the industries concerned, to send in teams of experts to do the job of sales promotion and marketing on a thorough basis. These teams need not, as is the case with SATOUR, be parts of separate corporations; they can be part of the existing Department of Commerce organization. However, I do suggest that they should not be regarded as permanent; they should be regarded as task forces to do a job of opening up export markets and when those markets are opened up, it should be left to the industries themselves, either on an individual-firm basis or on an industry-as-a-whole basis, to take over from the task force to be sent in by the Department of Commerce. I believe that once a market is opened up, once the industry realizes that there is profitable business to be done in exporting to that market, there will be no problem in the industry taking over, because they will not like to see that market go.

I believe that what I have said is a practical way of promoting exports. I believe that it is the practical way of strengthening the overseas commercial and trade representation for which this motion calls and I have much pleasure in supporting the motion.

Mr. Speaker, it has become obvious to me from this discussion that there is one fact on which all of us are agreed, namely that we are keen to promote our exports. In fact, the speech made by the hon. member for Constantia, who has just resumed his seat, had export promotion as its theme. And in that respect we have no fault to find; but if one takes a look at this motion, it is clear that it actually embraces something else. The motion reads—

• (a) problems caused by the United Kingdom joining the European Economic Community; and
• (b) the lack of diplomatic and trade representation in many countries, particularly in the Far East,

In other words, his motion asks for the trade representatives, for reasons quoted by him—and then he also says “wherever possible and necessary”—to be strengthened by the appointment of properly qualified personnel. Arising from the argument on the amendment that was proposed, I just want to tell the hon. member that a motion such as this one is unnecessary. There are no good grounds for coming to this House with such a motion. A motion dealing with export promotion, with what additional ways and means we can employ to promote export, as, inter alia, set out in the report of the Reynders Commission, is a different matter. In fact, I want to say with respect that this is actually what the discussion today was concerned with—export promotion. But what the hon. member is asking for here, is being done from day to day and from year to year. The hon. gentlemen quoted freely from the report of the Reynders Commission, but in the passages read out here by them there is nothing that indicates that what is being requested in this motion is not being done. None of these quotations have given the slightest indication that the Government is not doing all that is necessary and possible, as circumstances may require—as the hon. member puts it in his motion—to bring about trade representations through properly qualified people. It goes without saying, Sir, that nobody will suggest that everything is perfect. How can we, a small country such as South Africa, have trade representation in the world which is comparable with, for instance, that of the United States of America? It stands to reason that one cannot expect that. We cannot reach for the moon, because that is not humanly possible. But what is reasonable and possible in the circumstances, is being done.

Further to one statement that was made here by the hon. member for East London City, more specifically in respect of Thailand, I want to say something else. He said, amongst other things, that we should extend our honorary trade representation further. In that regard we have certain problems from time to time. One of these problems—this is applicable to Thailand—is that in conjunction with the Department of Foreign Affairs we, too, should like to have permanent representation in certain countries, and honorary trade representation in the country where we should like to have official representation will in all probability thwart the appointment of official representatives there, as the hon. member will probably realize too. In the case of Thailand this is precisely the position. We should like to have official representation there, and in the meantime it is being suggested to us that it may as well be honorary trade representations. We believe that if we were now to introduce honorary trade representation there, it would hamper our chances of having official trade representation there. Such are the problems we experience from time to time and from place to place.

But as far as export promotion is concerned, I do not think that we disagree in any way that this is one of the most important considerations of the Government, as is probably the case with any other government in the world. That is why the Government is in earnest about this matter. Mr. Speaker, this book, the report of the Reynders Commission, is after all proof of the Government being in earnest about export promotion. This commission was appointed by me as Minister of Economic Affairs and, as has already been said in this House today, did a tremendous job of work in producing this report within such a short time. In following up what was said by other hon. gentlemen, I should like to speak highly of this report—and I would be neglecting my duty if I did not do so. I had contact with this commission while it was in session, and I know how much work went into this report. This commission performed a tremendous task within a short time, and I should like to express personally my highest appreciation for the work done by this commission. But, of course, this does not mean that all the recommendations contained in the report will necessarily be accepted by the Government. The Cabinet will from time to time consider the recommendations as set out in the report. As they are approved by the Cabinet and as our means permit those recommendations will be implemented. Last year already we approved and implemented certain recommendations made by this Reynders Commission as published in its interim report. A few days ago I made another announcement in regard to railway rates in order to help exporters. In this way we shall from time to time consider and implement the various recommendations wherever it is at all possible to do so.

But, Mr. Speaker, whereas we are considering this matter, as analysed by hon. members on both sides, and especially as seen in the light of the motion as it is phrased here and lays emphasis on trade representation, I think it is essential that we make an analysis of the task of the Government as regards export promotion through trade representation in the rest of the world, as distinct from the task of the exporter. I shall simply refer to the exporter rather than the manufacturer, for a very large part of our exports today consists of primary products which are not very closely connected with the manufacturing industry. If I should now, in the first instance, have to make an analysis of the task of the official—i.e. of the Government’s—trade representation abroad, I should like to mention to you, Sir, a few points on which the department is working at the moment. I think it is primarily the task of the trade representative, in whatever foreign country he may be, to make on receiving representations from potential exporters from South Africa, a proper investigation into and a market study of the products which the exporter in question would like to market in the country in question. In that process he should then investigate the conditions as regards the existing or possible demand for those goods which the potential exporter wants to export. In the second instance, I think it is his task to inquire into the existing competition for such products in that particular country on the part of local competitors, and not only on the part of local competitors, but also on that of foreign competitors. In the third instance, it is his task to make a study of the government regulations applicable in the country in question, such as, inter alia, the customs tariffs that are applicable, the import restrictions that may apply in such a country, etc., so that he may inform his potential importer properly in respect of these locally applicable government regulations. Then he should also be able to inform the potential exporter properly in regard to the marketing methods that obtain and are applicable in the country of which he wants the particulars, and in addition he should do anything which in his opinion is in the interests of this exporter from South Africa so as to enable him to find himself a market in that country. Furthermore, he should generally keep us, i.e. his head office in South Africa, informed at all times of the possibility of export to that particular country in which he finds himself. In that process, in his attempts to keep us fully informed, he should, inter alia, examine the development projects taking place in such a country. Let us take South Africa as an example. The Saldanha/Sishen scheme is so extensive in scope that it may not even be necessary for a representative here of another country to inform his country that we have here a scheme such as the Saldanha/Sishen scheme, for I should say that this is probably world news. But it will nevertheless be his task to obtain particulars of this development project here in South Africa and then to inform his country as follows: Look, this is the scope of the project, these are the various sections of it, these contracts have already been entered into. But there are still many other additional things for which a market may perhaps be found as a result of the particular development project taking place here. Therefore I think it is the responsibility of our representative abroad to furnish us at all times with information in regard to scarcities of certain products and articles. A scarcity may perhaps develop as a result of droughts or other conditions, such as strikes or things of that nature. He should then inform his country immediately of the circumstances of those scarcities. Furthermore, it is essential for him to submit a report from time to time and to let his country know if there has been a change in the demand and in the needs of the people. The housewife may have changed her preferences from one product to another product which may in the meantime have become more popular for some reason or other. For instance, at one stage grapefruit was frightfully expensive in Britain simply because the story had been spread that grapefruit was the best remedy for slimming. At that stage grapefruit was so expensive in England that one could hardly afford it. It is information of that nature that we expect from our trade representative. It is equally important that he should notify his Government at all times of the various methods of packaging developing there. As we know, the world is always changing, so much so that the methods of packaging which are popular today and which the housewife likes, may possibly no longer be to her liking tomorrow or next week or next year. Even in respect of labelling, the change in the taste of people in respect of labelling, in respect of all these things, such a representative must at all times inform his head office in South Africa.

Then there is another factor with which he must be acquainted and of which he must be mindful, namely the inquiries he receives from importers in that country. In every country of the world one finds importers, people who import from other countries, and they in turn handle the distribution in their own country. Therefore, in the country in which he finds himself the importers will from time to time get into touch with him. They will ask him whether there is any possibility of their getting a particular product from South Africa. He has to negotiate with these importers and has to maintain contact with South Africa in order to ascertain whether we can supply that product to that country in given and in sufficient quantities. When he does so as a result of inquiries from an importer in a particular country, it is in turn our task here to ascertain domestically, in South Africa, whether there are people who are interested in these products in which that importer in the other country is interested. Then, I think it is also the task of our official trade representative to be mindful from time to time, at all times, of the possibility of complaints which may be lodged in regard to products coming from South Africa and being sold there in his country. If there are any complaints about, for instance, the quality of the products, it is his duty to inform South Africa and, through his headquarters here, also the exporters that there are certain shortcomings in the products they are marketing. It is, furthermore, the task of the trade representative to bring about a dissemination of information on South Africa’s products. For instance, he must see to it that advertisements of certain products are placed in local newspapers and magazines, and it is also his task to make arrangements from time to time for displaying products on various shows. Today we heard several hon. members referring here to our pathetic performance at the food show in Paris. That was really tragic. I can understand why the hon. member for Humansdorp feels that one does not always achieve at such a show as much success as is generally thought to be the case. That notwithstanding, it is in the first place the task of the trade representative to arrange for participation in shows, and this is also done by my department. One would nevertheless have liked to see a greater measure of co-operation than was in fact evident at this show. We came out of it in dismay. Furthermore, a trade representative must from time to time send in reports to his department on the general economic conditions prevailing in that country. For instance, when a budget speech is made in his country, he should be able to deduce from it what possible effect the budget may have on the existing export to that country or on potential imports which as a result of the budget may now be effected more easily than was the case before. Finally, a trade representative must at all times assist the head of his mission, the ambassador along with whom he is serving there, in the work performed there by him.

On the other hand, the exporter, too, has a task to perform. On this matter there was a difference of opinion …

Not a difference of opinion.

Very well, then, perhaps not a difference of opinion, but something about which we had arguments today, namely that this is not only the task of the department, but that the exporter, too, has certain tasks to perform. The first thing we must understand, is that it is not the task of the Government, the Department of Commerce and our trade representatives abroad to sell. They have to create the channels; they have to make the contacts and they have to furnish potential exporters and potential sellers with information, but it is not our task to sell. The selling must be done by the exporter himself. In this process I think it is vitally important that the selling or the supply of export goods must be continuous. This was mentioned by one of the hon. members, I think it was the hon. member for Smith-field. The supply of export goods must be continuous, without interruption. It goes without saying that, if one has built up a market and supplied a certain product in a certain country for a year or two, and then breaks off trade for a year, one will have to start all over again. Exporters and potential exporters must therefore make sure that they can supply their goods to such an extent that they will be able to supply the market with those goods on a continuous basis. One of our greatest problems in regard to export is in fact the range of our export. It often happens that when a specific product is placed on the market—for instance, in America or in Europe—the customers buying the product say that they want five million units of that product, but then the exporter in question has to say: No, I cannot supply five million; I can only, perhaps, supply 500 units. That is one of our problems. When one enters a market, one should not only be prepared to ensure a continuous supply—that is important—but one should also, if possible, be able to supply in large quantities. Exporters must therefore not expect their export to be based on surpluses. Their export cannot be based on surpluses only, because one year there is a surplus and the next year there is none. The product must be supplied at a constant flow.

The British entry into the European Economic Community forms part of this motion. Recently, if I may mention this, I had to take a very important decision. On the first Saturday of this year I was approached with the question of whether we should at all export apples and pears to England during February and March, because we had been informed that a levy would be imposed on pears from 1st February to the end of February. This levy, so I was informed, would be calculated at approximately R1-45 per box of pears, i.e. the day the box of pears arrived in England, a levy of Rl-45 would be payable on that box. I was also informed that a levy would be imposed on apples during February and March. The levy on apples would amount to approximately R2-16 per box of apples. Now, if one bears in mind that the profit made by a farmer last year was estimated to be 45 cents on a box of apples, then surely it goes without saying that unless wonderful changes take place in the market, this export will run at a loss. We looked at the matter from all angles. We weighed up the advantages and the disadvantages and arrived at the conclusion that even if it resulted in a loss, we would nevertheless have to export, for if we did not export it would mean that the market would be without pears and apples during that time. If that should happen, the housewife or the buyer would buy pears and apples at other places. They might even go so far as to say: No, I cannot get any pears or apples at the moment; therefore I am just going to buy other fruit now. In due course they would be used to eating other fruit, whereas we had over a period of years built up a market in order to accustom them to eating apples. Consequently I said: Let us export. We decided to export even if it would work out at a loss.

The exporters’ task is, furthermore, that they have to make personal contact with potential buyers. They cannot sit here in South Africa and try to make sales abroad by way of correspondence. They must make personal contact. Another important point—and this we must never underestimate—is that we must place quality products on the world market. This is probably more applicable to us than to any other country in the world since we are so far removed from the market. After all, it costs just as much to ship a box of bad apples to England as it does to ship a box of good apples there. That is why distance plays such an important role with us. We are seeking world markets. We must supply quality products at all times, irrespective of whether they are manufactured goods or agricultural produce. I can give hon. members the assurance that there are enough rich people in Europe, America and in the rest of the world today. There are many rich people who do not ask what the price is but are prepared to pay anything, but then they want quality. They enter the shop, look at the products and then buy the best. They pay the price charged for it. Therefore our big secret lies in supplying quality products when we want to export. We must also supply specialized products. We have in South Africa certain specialized products which are, as it were, novelties to the rest of the world. Consequently I think we should also concentrate on such products.

As far as the location of offices is concerned, we must remember that our aim is to render service to the exporter. At the place where we are to locate our office, there must be a possibility of sales. In other words, there must be a need for an office to be located there. In this process there are certain principles that must be considered by us. In the first instance, is it a new country that has not been served before—in other words, a country in which we can probably promote our exports in a new field? In the second instance, and this is as important—the hon. member for East London City also referred to this—we must know whether such a country is accessible to us or not. We must know whether we are acceptable there, whether that country wants us there. After all, there is no point in establishing one’s office in a country where one is not welcome and where obstacles will be put in one’s way. Furthermore, it is as important that we take into consideration the geographic location of the country. We believe to a large extent in centralization, and in taking a look at our representation in Buenos Aires, we shall see that it also serves Uruguay, Chile and Paraguay. Consequently we do not consider it to be necessary under the present circumstances to establish representation in these countries as well. The same applies to certain countries in the East, to which the hon. member for East London City referred. We have representation in Tokyo. As the hon. member himself said, we have three posts there, which I think have all ben filled now. He said there was one vacancy, but that does not really matter. Our representative in Tokyo does not only serve Japan, but also South Korea. Our representative in Hong Kong serves Thailand and Taiwan in addition to Hong Kong. When we locate a trade office, it is important to take a look at the restrictions that may apply in a particular country. When I talk about restrictions, I want to mention a very fine practical example. The hon. member will recall that until recently it was impossible for us to export oranges to Japan because they said our oranges carried some kind of disease or other which they feared would be transmitted to their tangerines. It was only last year or the year before last that we succeeded in selling our oranges in Japan. At the moment we are building up a very good market there. That is why I say that the regulations applicable in a particular country are as important. I also want to refer to the training of officials sent over by us. This is not such an easy task; in fact, it is really a major task. We are now pursuing the policy that no official trade representative is sent overseas unless he has obtained a university degree—to be specific, a university degree in economics. Then it is also necessary, and we consider it to be extremely important, that not only he, but also his wife, should be screened carefully. Hon. members will appreciate that in a foreign country the representative’s wife is just as important as the man himself. In addition to this we are training them in foreign languages. We have made it our object that they should receive at least two years’ training before going abroad.

As my time is growing short, I want to furnish hon. members, in conclusion, with a picture of our representation abroad as it is at the moment. At the moment we have 29 diplomatic missions, consisting of 22 embassies, three legations and four permanent missions. In addition we have 21 consulates, two trade missions and, added to that, 34 honorary consulates and two honorary trade missions. We therefore have 88 offices in all. Our representation in the Far East consists of the following: In Japan, a consul-general; in Taiwan, a consul-general; in New Zealand, a consul-general; in Australia, an embassy; and in Hong Kong a consul-general. As hon. members know, we have at the E.E.C. a separate and very strong mission, which was also mentioned in this motion. This mission is under the leadership of Dr. Chris Naudé, who is one of our most experienced diplomats, a person who has spent his whole life in countries abroad. We are paying the fullest attention to what is happening in Brussels pursuant to Britain’s entry into the European Common Market, because we know that it is extremely important for us to retain that extensive market, to which reference has been made, that mighty colossus of a market in Europe, which has been our market traditionally and, what is more, will probably remain so for many years in the future because it is our nearest market, and to avail ourselves of this enlarged community which has now come into being. Therefore I say that we are already doing everything that is being requested in this motion.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion and amendment lapsed.