Mr. Speaker, in consequence of an agreement between the parties I wish to move without notice—

• Mondays
• 10h30 to 12h45
• 14h15 to 18h30
• 20h00 to 22h30
• Tuesdays
• 14h15 to 19h00
• Wednesdays
• 14h15 to 18h30
• 20h00 to 22h30
• Thursdays
• 10h30 to 12h45
• 14h15 to 18h30
• 20h00 to 22h30
• Fridays
• 10h00 to 12h45
• 14h15 to 18h30; and

• 10h30 to 12h45
• 14h15 to 17h30.

Thank goodness for Sunday!

I assume that the hon. member will be in church at 10h30! Of course, these hours can be relaxed if we make very good progress. This motion is necessary to ensure that we have the sitting hours we require.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform this House that on Monday, after the Agriculture Vote has been disposed of, we shall proceed to deal with the Status of the Transkei Bill. It has been agreed that we shall dispose of all the stages of that legislation next week, and the duration of each stage has also been agreed upon. In the intervals between the discussion of the various stages we shall dispose of the Economic Affairs Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I want to open the debate this morning on a very positive note, in consequence of a remark made by the hon. member for Bethlehem in this House yesterday evening. I want to assure the hon. member that I am convinced that Northern Transvaal is simply going to win the Currie Cup again this year! [Interjections.] Yesterday evening the hon. member for Sandton asked the hon. the Minister to do certain things, and I want to dwell on this for a moment. He asked, inter alia, that the hon. the Minister do his best to promote the interest of the cricket players and that the hon. the Minister try to bring about better relations as the ball allegedly was in the court of the Government. He also asked that the Government try to raise the standards of non-White sport. However, the hon. the Minister has been doing this for a long time. Since he has taken over this portfolio, he has seen this as his task and he is achieving resounding success in this regard. He is building bridges and improving relations. He is playing the ball. However, I want to ask the hon. member this: What is he and his party doing to help the hon. the Minister in this regard? What do they tell Mr. Howa and Mr. Middleton of Sacboc when they speak to them? Does everything have to come from our side alone? I think they, too, have a task of assisting us in this regard.

I should like to say a few words about a completely different matter, however, and that is the question of more financial aid for research, more specifically for research into recreation in South Africa. The appointment last year of a co-ordinator for sports research in the Republic, was an occurrence of which one took cognizance with much joy. I am referring to paragraph 11(b) of the Department’s report. The further fact that sports research in South Africa which is being undertaken by universities and other bodies, is already yielding results in the sphere of sporting achievements for South Africa, is a gladdening aspect. In this regard I am referring to John van Reenen’s world record in discus. The sports research which is being undertaken at present, is chiefly aimed at the physiology, mechanics and techniques of sport.

The department is also geared for rendering service to the people of South Africa in respect of recreation. For this reason I want to ask today that more attention be given to this aspect of the department’s activities. With the increase in population amongst all our peoples here in South Africa, we are faced with the accomplished fact that our natural resources for recreation are disappearing. South Africa has areas with natural, attractive scenery, picturesque mountain ranges—those of us who had the privilege of taking walks over the weekend, will be able to testify to this— mineral baths, forests, woods, lakes and attractive beaches. These places are the heritage of our people and do not exist for individuals only. They ought to be protected and looked after like a jewel, for the present and future generations.

I do not know whether it is a reaction against increasing mechanization or an attempt to escape from the artificial atmosphere of city life, or whether it may be attributed to higher incomes or possibly to other reasons, but it remains a fact that during the last decade people throughout the world have shown an ever-increasing and unparalleled interest in those forms of recreation which bring them into contact with nature and life in the open air. Technology and the machine age have robbed us of many valuable creative opportunities. Manual labour is being replaced more and more by machines and we are drifting into a direction of physical decline, poor health and a lack of energy. Prosperity amongst the masses has led to the many attractions and temptations of harmful and degenerating forms of commercialized recreation being brought to the doorstep of most people. Particularly constructive recreation is the ideal and in many cases the only possible way of solving this multitude of problems. Nor are the benefits of wholesome recreation limited to providing compensation deficiencies of our times. Its rehabilitative and preventive characteristics in the sphere of crime, physical well-being and child safety have been proved time and time again by surveys and research in various countries. In the light of what I have already mentioned, I should like to address an appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider the establishment, as in the case of sports research, of a national advisory committee for recreation research. The Department of Sport and Recreation, of Planning and the Environment, of Tourism, of Water Affairs, of Forestry, of Agriculture, of Bantu Administration and Development, of Coloured Relations, of Indian Affairs as well as the provincial administrations and other bodies which the hon. the Minister may deem necessary, should have representation on that committee. In my opinion an urgent inquiry should be conducted into the recreational needs and facilities of South Africa, and in this I include all its population groups—White, Brown and Black. What do we really know today about the recreational needs of the various population groups living here in South Africa? Very little in my opinion. Therefore I think it is essential that planning be undertaken on a national, provincial and urban basis for the recreational needs of everyone in South Africa, for the immediate future as well as for many years to come. We know this hon. Minister as a man who does more than talk; he also acts! Because this matter is of such importance to the well-being of our people, I have every confidence that he is also going to do something in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg must forgive me for not reacting to the positive speech he has just made. I agree with everything he said, except, of course, the bit of wishful thinking at the start about Northern Transvaal and the Currie Cup.

That will be the day!

I should like to bring the debate back to the question of sport and politics in the world of today, of the year 1976. This subject is one which is often raised in this House. We hear remarks such as, “Keep politics out of sport” and “Do not drag sport into politics”. Only yesterday we often heard this type of thing in the debate. I know the subject of sport and politics is, from the nature of the case, a very delicate matter. I also know that one always has to approach this matter with calm responsibility, and I shall try to do this. For logical dialogue and debating it is essential that we agree with one another on three basic principles concerning the matter of sport and politics. Then we shall be able to conduct a logical dialogue. What are these three basic principles and facts? Firstly, there is no room at all in sport for petty party political gain, for narrow-minded party political manoeuvring and for the exploitation of sport for political gain. There is no room at all for this among sportsmen themselves, among politicians themselves and among politicians and sportsmen. We can all probably give examples of how we have participated in sport ourselves without our dragging politics into it. In 1957-’58, in the backyard of the Regent Private Hotel, Pretoria, in view of a large number of Black workers and waiters and a large number of the residents I boxed against a Black man from Mamalodi. Surely one does not drag politics into something of this kind.

I can mention another example. I play cricket for the Parliamentary team. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is my president, the hon. member for Simonstown is my captain and the hon. member for Pinelands my team mate. [Interjections.] But thank heaven, Piet Koornhof is still my Minister!

Yesterday the hon. the Minister made certain remarks about newspapers which I support wholeheartedly. I must say I do not have much of a choice. The hon. the Minister will probably forgive me for saying that there are the unfortunate exceptions as well. I should just like to point out one example. Last year on 7 July we had a match at Newlands between an invitation team and the French. A Sunday newspaper had banner headlines on its front page the following morning. I do not hold this against the newspaper because it was a great historical occurrence. One could say it was the sporting event of the year. There was also a lovely big photograph. Everything was very nice. Below the photograph, however, there was a short report and I should like to quote some of it. The report reads as follows—

I read further—

And then the following—

I say this is petty politicking, an attempt to make petty political capital out of sport. What do the sportsmen themselves say? In the same report the following appeared—

The opinions of the sportsmen themselves are a sharp contrast to the pettiness of a newspaper reporter who does not want to see the matter in the correct light. I shall leave it at that as far as this aspect is concerned, except to say that the first important matter is to ban this type of pettiness from our sport.

The second fact I want to state is that the ideal, although it is something of a Utopian ideal, is to separate sport and politics completely from one another. We must strive after that deal, everyone must strive after it and I am completely in favour of it. I say it is idealism. However, idealism must be accompanied by realism. The important point which I want to make, is that throughout the world—no matter whether we like it or not—the position is that a country’s policy and system of government have a connection with sport. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South quoted Prof. Gert Scholtz yesterday evening. I am not in complete agreement with certain of Prof. Scholtz’s political views, but the fact remains that he is an expert in the field of sport and politics. I quote him—

He went on to say—

Therefore, what I am saying, is that we must accept these principles and realize that in the world of today sport cannot be separated 100% from politics. This type of policy of: “Leave sport 100% to the sportsmen and politics 100% to the politicians,” simply cannot work. It is nothing more than a pipe dream. It is really not realistic. We cannot discuss sport on the basis that sport and politics have nothing to do with each other. On the contrary. The two have a great deal to do with each other.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister, the department and the sportsmen and women of South Africa most sincerely for what they are doing to keep South Africa in world sport and to have us readmitted to those types of sport from which we have been expelled in world sport. Hon. members have pointed out the very important role which sport is playing in the world. The hon. members for Oudtshoorn and Geduld went into this matter very extensively yesterday evening. They referred to the motto “a healthy mind in a healthy body” and to the good human relations which sport promoted. I say that sport is the sphere in which people of different languages, faiths and views may meet and associate with one another without—and this is very important—their surrendering their own identities or sharing political power over themselves with others.

I conclude by pointing out one example of what world sport is doing. Last year in October the body-building world championships were held in Pretoria. On that occasion a television film of 25 minutes was made. The film was shown to 500 million viewers throughout the world. A third of the time of a large American firm’s sports programme was devoted to this film. I quote from what one Mr. Van der Vet, editor of the well-known Dutch Algemenen Dagblad wrote. This editor undertook a tour of our country and subsequently published a series of articles in that newspaper over a period of three months. He wrote very positively about South Africa and I should like to quote the third paragraph of his first article—

This sporting event was not arranged with political motives. This body-builders’ congress was not arranged for political gain, but the fact of the matter is that it has had an enormous effect throughout the world. The fight between the Black Bob Forster and the White Pierre Fourie and the fight between the Black Richie Kates and the White Galindez—I must say Galindez is a little “off-white”—meant a great deal to South Africa all over the world. I say it was worth millions of rands to us, although the fights were not arranged for political purposes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the course of his speech the hon. member for Kmgersdorp referred to the relationship between sports and politics. He has certain specific views in this connection. I think it is fair to say that sportsmen are not interested in politics. They are not politicians. There may be a few individuals who later go into politics for one reason or another, but basically when they are sportsmen, they are sportsmen and not politicians and they could not care less about what is going on in the political world. They are more interested in playing the game and in seeing how far they can get in the sport of their particular choice. On the other hand, there are newspapers and politicians who are also interested in sport. They are interested in sport for obvious reasons. Sport in South Africa plays an enormously important part in our social life. However, some politicians and newspapers are also interested in sport for ulterior motives. They use sport for their own particular objectives. I think it is high time politicians kept their noses out of sport as far as possible. I must concede that, while I think it is a generally accepted principle that sports administrators should run their own affairs and that sportsmen should get on with the game, there has to be a certain amount of control on the part of any Government of any country over the exercise of sporting authority. However, I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that such interference as there is—I do not like using that word—such interaction as there is between governmental bodies and sports bodies, should be kept to an absolute minimum. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that I think that in so far as he is concerned, he has built up a good relationship with most sporting bodies in South Africa as far as I can see. I commend him for that. I think it is important that the hon. the Minister should never lose sight of the fact that sportsmen must get on with the game they have chosen to play, that the sports administrators must run those games and that there should be as little interference, or even interaction, as possible between governmental bodies and sports bodies.

I want to deal briefly with two matters. The first is the question of the new responsibility of the Minister and his department for the building of small boat harbours. I do not have to repeat again what I have said so often in the House, viz. that it is vitally important not only for strategic reasons but also for recreational reasons that there should be more controlled outlets to the sea than there are at present. Quite apart from that, there is the dangerous situation to which reference has often been made in the House, viz. that a great many people take to sea in small boats which are not really suitable for going to sea in. They go with inadequate equipment and inadequate apparatus. I wish to deal now with the recreational aspect. The hon. the Minister must realize that there are hundreds of thousands of South Africans who take part these days in aquatic sports in the marine sphere and who did not take part before. This involves a growing international sport. Therefore it can be of great benefit to us in an international sense if we provide sports facilities for fishing and small-boating off our coasts.

Talking of the Cape alone, it seems to me that there are two distinct areas for small boat harbours. On the one hand, there is the False Bay area and on the other hand there are the Hermanus and Mossel Bay coastal areas. I would say that Mossel Bay should cater for the South-Western area. In so far as False Bay is concerned, there is an investigation under way at the moment by his department into the best sites for small boat harbours. The hon. the Minister is an educated man. He took Latin at university!! I want to tell him that he must remember the old Latin saying, quot homines tot sententiae. Therefore the hon. the Minister must give a lead in this matter. He cannot wait for every single sports body and individual to come to him to ask for a harbour to be built at a particular site. He must get on with the job. In this connection I want to say to him that he cannot do better than consult the engineer of Viscor, Mr. Grobbelaar, who has made an intensive study over many years of possible harbours along the west coast and along the south-western coast. Naturally, he has come to the conclusion that Kalk Bay is the best site in the False Bay for such a harbour! In addition to Mr. Grobbelaar’s own expert assessment, there are surveys that have been carried out since the beginning of the century by various marine engineers into the most suitable sites for small boat harbours. I would hate the subcommittee that has been appointed to waste its time with investigations when the work has in fact already been done and he could be using the expertise of Mr. Grobbelaar and his department.

May I now refer to a different matter altogether. I have said earlier that I believe sport should, as far as possible, be left in the hands of the sport administrators. I, therefore, advocated that there should be no interference. However, there are certain aspects of sport which, I believe, must be ventilated here in Parliament and I am going to ventilate a couple of them today. I want to start with the administrators of sport. As I see things, there has been an enormous increase in the number of people who have become sport administrators over the years. They now have blazers and ties of their own; they attend official functions; they run into tens, if not into hundreds, in some of our major sports, and I believe the situation is getting out of hand. I believe that there are far too many people who have been given privileges or prerequisites in the sporting sphere as sport administrators; far too many of them for the efficient handling of the sports concerned. One may think, for example, of the expense of entertainment with the vast number of administrators and—if I may put it crudely—their hangers-on, all of them attending entertainment given by various sporting bodies, which amounts to an increase in the costs of the administration of sport. As a result, this has to be passed on to the public. The public has to pay ridiculously high admission prices for rugby matches, cricket matches and other sporting matches. It is because of a sort of sports bureaucracy that is developing, particularly in the field of administration. It also leads to—what I think is a most unhealthy development in sport—the unhealthy dependence on advertising. One now goes to watch sport and one is constantly embarrassed by the apparent necessity to advertise goods and particular products in order to obtain financial contributions for the administrators to be used for the exercise of their sport. This, in turn, leads to exhibitionism among both administrators, referees, umpires and players themselves. In connection with the players I wish to say that there is a most unhealthy tendency developing in South Africa, of players of all sports embracing and kissing each other after scoring a goal or a try, as the case may be. That is something completely foreign to our sport and it is part of the general exhibitionism which is engendered by advertising to finance sport.

Referees and umpires are there to enforce the rules of the game they and the players that are playing love. For goodness sake, cannot the referees take their courage in their hands and say that when a man is guilty of dirty play he must be sent off the field without any more ado? If a referee does take that decision it should be incumbent on the administrators of that particular sport to back up the decision of the only man in a position to take such a decision, namely the referee or the umpire.

As regards decisions of referees and umpires, I must say that I am horrified—when watching a game of rugby or cricket—to see players protesting against a decision given by the umpire or by the referee. I believe that the vast bodies of administrators which exist now in the field of sport, should give very earnest attention to such matters as these, namely the discipline of the players under their control, the enforcement of decisions by umpires and referees and, what is more, looking after the cutting down of expenditure by themselves in the administration of their sport.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Simonstown, especially with regard to the last part of his speech, which dealt with referees. We do find that the players often act very critically towards a referee in a match. Sometimes one also hears many snide remarks about the referee from the spectators on the stands. I want to endorse the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Simonstown. I agree with him and I also believe that a player on the field must accept that the person appointed to ensure fair play on the sportsfield, give decisions that must be respected.

I want to agree with the hon. the Minister and say that I am very grateful for the fact that very little fuss has been made during this debate about politicking in sport. I believe the fact that so little criticism has been expressed is due to the fact that the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation has been handling this division of his department in a very brilliant way for the past few years.

Today I want to refer to another division of the department which, in my opinion, is of far greater importance to the interests of South Africa than the politics which are practised here in Parliament, in the newspapers and abroad in order to get at South Africa. I am referring to the function of the Department of Sport and Recreation of creating a strong, healthy and fit nation in South Africa. Here are two quotations from the report of the Department of Sport and Recreation which are very important to me. On page 8 I read—

The other quotation on page 2 reads as follows—

It is really shocking to learn that in South Africa only 10% of the Whites participate in some form of sport. Never before has it been as essential as it is now to make our nation aware of the absolute necessity of physical fitness. The principle of “a healthy mind in a healthy body”, has never been as true and essential as at this very time. The fast pace of modern life makes extremely high demands on the intellectual ability of people. The intellectual and physical abilities of people are not contradictory, but complementary. What do we find in practice today? In our movement-bereft working lives in which growing intellectual demands are made on us, our physical abilities are wasting away and intellectual abilities must necessarily suffer because of this. I think everyone in this House and everyone in South Africa should ask themselves whether we are not using our bodies, the temples of God, merely as a hanger for fine clothes. Is modern man not inclined to confine our physical activities to pressing a button in order to reach our office on the fifteenth floor? Are we not, as the hon. the Minister of Agriculture rightly said—digging our graves with our teeth at fancy luncheons, dinners and functions? When we look at what is happening around us and when we observe the physical and spiritual attacks launched at our nation, then we can say without any fear of contradiction that what South Africa needs on its road ahead is a people which must be physically strong and healthy, spiritually strong and motivated and prepared and able to meet the challenges of the future. In order to point out where one finds one of the most important training grounds for the young man and woman whom South Africa needs on its road ahead, I quote the following from the confession of a famous sportsman—

And then he comes to the most important—

The hon. the Minister and his department deserve the highest praise for their dynamic attempts over the past number of years to activate our people and to inspire us to become a nation of participants instead of a nation of spectators. In this connection I have in mind particularly the success achieved by the national fitness scheme under the guidance of the department. The department has only 64 professional officers who do the work, but in spite of that the department offered 2 003 projects in 1975 which represented an increase of 62,7% on those of the previous year. In 1975 there were 124 065 participants involved in the 2 003 projects whereas projects in the previous year involved only 65 000 participants. This is an increase of 88%.

However, in order to participate there must be facilities, or facilities must be made available, facilities which, in the words of the well-known athlete, moulded his character. We welcome the investigation into the state of sport and physical recreation amongst the population groups of South Africa which was conducted under the chairmanship of Mr. Beyers Hoek, the Secretary for Sport and Recreation. The investigation also covered the utilization of sports facilities. I want to put it on record today that we are grateful for the amount of R200 000 made available by the Department of Sport and Recreation to sports clubs for the creation of sports facilities. We want to express the hope—and together with the hon. member for Kimberley South I want to say that it is a pity that the hon. the Minister of Finance is not here—that with the benevolence of the hon. the Minister of Finance the amount to which I have just referred will be increased substantially in future.

However, I also want to say that we should see to the utilization of the existing facilities. There are real problems for the ordinary man who would like to get fit. Either he has to jog in the street, or he has to get into his car and drive a considerable distance before he reaches an area where he can practise. If he wants to join a gymnasium, it will cost him R10 or R20 per month at the moment and now I pose the question: How many school gymnasiums are not being used in the evenings and during school holidays? I am convinced of the fact that it is high time that sports and recreational centres be established for the convenience of the public. Has the time not also arrived for staff to be appointed who are qualified to accept the responsibility for a centre of this kind? A further question: Is adequate use being made of the sportsfields and gymnasiums of educational institutions throughout South Africa and of the services of their coaches? Since the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation is also the Minister of National Education, I want to ask him whether he and his two departments could not perhaps bring about a practical arrangement making these facilities available to the public as well.

I should like to quote from a book by Dr. J. W. Postma, a former lecturer at the University of Stellenbosch—

In the offices of our Government departments and in the offices of our large business undertakings today there are thousands of people who have over-active minds while their bodies are under-active. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have now come to the end of the discussion on the Sport and Recreation Vote, and those hon. members who have been sitting in this House of Assembly for many years will readily agree with me that this has probably been the most pleasant sport debate we have ever had in this House of Assembly. It has been a debate which has testified to good relations and to a desire to keep politics out of sport as far as it is practicable, and which has shown that we approach this matter—which is certainly not the most important matter to which this House could devote its attention, but which is, nevertheless, an important one—in such a serious spirit because we wish in this way to serve the best interests of our country and our people. Further to what was said by the hon. member who has just sat down, I also want to say that where we are dealing with sportsmen and sportswomen and where success on the sportsground is so important to them, I have often asked myself what success really is.

†I believe, Sir, that success is doing the best you can under all circumstances, and what goes for the sportsmen, goes for us: doing the best you can. Success is certainly also being just to your fellow-men. I believe you cannot have success if you are not also just to your fellow-men. Success is struggling on with a will to win. I am a great believer that, as the hon. member for Kuruman has just said, if there is a will then so many problems that seem to be unsolvable become solvable. Therefore the will to win must be there. Then, of course, knowing that you cannot always win, I think success also means taking defeat with a cheerful grin. I think that is very important. But I think success is more than that. It is also being true to the faith you profess, and success to my way of thinking, therefore, is doing your noblest best under all circumstances. That, I think, is success and I think our sportsmen and sportswomen, as I said last night, deserve warm praise for the way in which they are conducting themselves, and that goes for White sportsmen as well as for non-White sportsmen.

*Reference has been made here to the fact that permits have now been allocated to the Department of Sport and Recreation. I want to tell the hon. members that between September 1975 and the end of March 1976, my department handled 143 applications for permits, and of these 16 were not recommended. One is grateful for the fact that the position has developed to a point where we have achieved such understanding in respect of this matter— the granting of permits—that we have that measure of co-operation in South Africa. I think this is splendid. You will allow me to point out that we had five world championships here in South Africa last year and this year, and that six more will take place this year, bringing us to 11 World Championships in approximately 18 months, something for which one is really grateful, because it proves the confidence which international sport bodies have in the South African sport administrators. This is emphasized by the fact that we had five world championships in South Africa during 1975. We had the world bowling championships, for example, and hon. members will agree with me that no one who saw that event on television or was privileged to attend it can ever forget it. The people from overseas were at a loss for words in their praises of that tournament, of the outstanding organization and of the pleasant atmosphere that prevailed there. The chairman of the international body said—and this was accepted with acclaim by all the bowlers who attended the tournament—that he did not think the organization of those world bowling championships in the Republic of South Africa could ever be equalled.

I mention this here because it is symbolic and because it highlights a very important fact, i.e. that this was made possible by the close and excellent co-operation which existed between the bowling administrators, myself and the Department of Sport and Recreation. Had it not been for that co-operation, which extended over a period of four years—these world bowling championships were organized over a period of four years—the event could not have taken place in the way it did. But I am able to say today that the co-operation took place in the very best spirit. Other kinds of sport in South Africa would do well to take a leaf out of this book of the bowling people. They are mature people, sensible and wise people, people who know how to administer. If they go and talk to those people, they will hear and they will know that it pays to have co-operation, because it ensures success. And there is no problem between the Government and these sportsmen which cannot be solved if the necessary co-operation exists. I am very grateful for the co-operation which already exists, and we must develop it. Therefore I appeal once again to sport administrators, White and non-White, to whom my door is open 24 hours a day, and I say to them that if we maintain that co-operation, we shall solve our problems to an even greater extent, as I shall try to indicate to hon. members in a little while.

But then you will have no time left for the teachers.

No. I can assure the hon. member that I have a great deal of time left for them. The casting championships for anglers were held in South Africa. I attended the event. It was beautiful. One of our men won four gold medals on that occasion. The Gymkhana world championships were also held here. As far as motor racing is concerned, the world championships were held at Kayalami, and who will ever be able to forget the victory of Jody Scheckter in his Tyrrell Elf in March 1975? And many thousands of people were privileged to witness this. And the world body-building championships—what a success those were!

We look forward to the following world championships this year: The billiard world championships, the tug-of-war championships, the hang-gliding world championships, the powerboat world championships, as well as the model-boat world championships. I have been present at model-boat championships. It may sound like a minor and an unimportant matter to hon. members, but attend one, and hon. members will find it a most pleasurable experience. Furthermore, the model aircraft world championships will also be held here. I want to point out to hon. members that during 1973, we were visited by teams representing 48 kinds of sport. During 1974, teams representing 50 kinds of sport visited South Africa from overseas, and in 1975 the number grew to 52. During the first three months of 1976, sportsmen practising 24 kinds of sport visited South Africa. The number of countries involved in these visits was as follows: In 1973 there were 44 and in 1974 there were 37. The number went down slightly because the S.A. Games were held in South Africa in 1973. In 1975, however, it went up to the greatest number we have ever had in our history, 53. During the first three months of 1976, the countries whose sportsmen visited South Africa numbered 33, and there is no doubt about the fact that last year’s record is going to be surpassed.

When we look at visits to foreign countries, we see that 43 kinds of sport were involved in such visits in 1973. In 1974, the number was 42; in 1975, 43; and in the first three months of this year, 17. The number of countries involved in these visits were 25 in 1973; 26 in 1974; 34 in 1975—a record. During the first three months of 1976, the number came to 21. The kinds of sport which were involved in international participation—and there are only about 78 kinds of sport—numbered 62 in 1973. In 1974, the number was 65; in 1975 it was 68; and during the first three months of 1976, 35 had already been involved. However, I am not trying to create the impression that we are being completely successful in our attempt to enter the international arena. I am simply saying that we are making excellent progress. I mention this for the specific reason that it brings me to a point which I should very much like to emphasize on this occasion.

Before coming to that point, I want to point out to hon. members that a mere three years ago, when professional boxing and wrestling were transferred to the Department of Sport and Recreation and to me—it used to fall under other departments—there was a legal prohibition in South Africa on professional boxing and wrestling between the population groups, i.e. between White and non-White. There was a legal prohibition on this. It was my task, which I performed with the greatest pleasure, although not without difficulty, of course, to get that ban lifted, and three years ago it was in fact lifted. This is a very important fact. A law which had been on the Statute Book for years and which prohibited professional boxing and wrestling between the various population groups in South Africa was repealed. After that we had the first fight between Bob Foster and Pierre Fourie. It was an excellent fight and I remember it very well. I could tell a very interesting little story about that event, but I should prefer to leave it for a later occasion.

As a Minister, I must be very careful in what I say, for if I tell a joke, there may be people who think that this is now the law. The opposite is also true, namely that when I make a law, there are people who think I am joking! Less than three years after that ban had been lifted, what happened? We had a fight for the world boxing title between two Coloured people in South Africa. I am referring to the fight between Galindez of Argentinia and Richie Kates of the USA. Galindez is an outstanding boxer, and so is Kates. Galindez grew fond of South Africa and South Africa grew fond of him. A man who can show so much courage as that boxer—I was able to attend that fight—holds out a lesson to the spectator. He fought against Richie Kates, a Negro from the United States for whom we also have the greatest appreciation. This was a wonderful achievement for South Africa, three years after the ban had been lifted. It underlined the enormous changes which had taken place in the field of sport in South Africa within a mere four years. These have been great changes and positive changes. There is not the slightest doubt about the fact that they were changes which are a credit to us all, a credit to all the population groups, changes which have brought about good relations in South Africa, as the hon. member for Geduld pointed out in such a striking way last night with his reference to the scientific investigation which had taken place in Soweto. If I were to tell hon. members how many boxing matches of that nature have taken place since 1973—and there has been no trouble at any of those boxing matches—then I would say that we are really making good progress.

This brings me to the point which I should very much like to emphasize on this occasion. I have already underlined the great changes which have taken place in the field of sport in South Africa, changes which have enabled me to address a letter to Prof. Ludwig Guttman. I quote the following extract from a letter which I wrote to him on 7 March 1975—

Sir Ludwig Guttman is a wise old gentleman, a splendid person! He showed this letter to various parties. I know he showed it to the British Prime Minister, for he informed me of this, and he showed it to the British Minister of Sport as well. They were very surprised to see it, he told me. The other day I wrote a similar letter to Messrs. Day and Emmett of our squash team, and it received quite a lot of publicity in England a week or two ago. This has brought about a great change in respect of those forms of sport. These people then took up the cudgels for South Africa. As a result of this they said, for example, that if Canada would not receive the South African team at the Olympic Games for paraplegics, the games for paraplegics would not take place in Canada. They said they would then hold those Olympic Games elsewhere. The result was that it was decided that the South African team would in fact take part in the games for paraplegics in Canada. I give that team my blessing and I wish it every success. It is an experience to go and watch those people, who have certain physical defects, while they are practising sport. It is a wonderful experience! I want to take this opportunity of appealing to the public to assist this team financially, because they are still short of funds. The Department of Sport and Recreation has done what it could, but more funds will still have to be found. So I am making an appeal on this occasion for funds to enable this team to participate in the Olympic Games.

The communists are causing a very serious disruption in the international sport situation. There is not the least doubt about what they are trying to do. The communists are using sport in the international sphere to achieve political ends. I want to make an appeal from this House of Assembly to the Western countries, because we on this southern tip of Africa may be better able to see very clearly what is happening. We can do so because we are so directly involved in these methods applied by the Russians and because we have to a large extent fallen a prey to them. For this reason I want to ask the Western countries to take a good look at what is happening in international sport. The communists are exploiting sport in a disgraceful way to achieve political ends which suit them, in Southern Africa as well. This applies to other countries in the world as well. They began with South Africa. Then they dragged in Taiwan, then came Israel, and now they are getting at New Zealand. Where is the line going to be drawn? Which country will be next?

†They will continue involving one country after another. The time has arrived for the Western world to awaken to what is happening in the world of sport. I have no doubt about the fact that I am correct in what I am saying because I have made a very intensive study of the matter.

*Because I am so sure of this, I have also discussed the matter with my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I address a formal invitation to Mr. Ordia, the president of the Supreme Council for Sport in Africa, to visit South Africa as a guest of the Minister of Sport and Recreation of the Republic of South Africa, and to acquaint himself with the changes which have taken place with regard to sport in South Africa in recent years. I shall roll out the red carpet for him and we shall guarantee his safety. He will enjoy his visit. He will enjoy the hospitality of South Africa. He should come and see for himself what the position here is. He should come and see how we are making an honest attempt here, before God and man, to normalize sport and how we are trying to get away from race discrimination in the field of sport. He should come and acquaint himself with the facts. Then we can join forces and together we can make a substantial contribution to international sport. Then we can make sport that powerful instrument again which it was intended to be over the years. In accordance with the idea which was so well embodied in the Olympic charter at the time by Coubertin, sport can again become a powerful instrument for achieving and developing good relations between peoples and nations, between races and between individuals all over the world. South Africa is honest in saying: “We want to do those things; we want to help the world to use sport in this way.”

We say again, as the hon. the Prime Minister has very strongly emphasized, that any country in the world—any country in Africa or any country in the East, or Russia or China—is very welcome to come and practise sport in South Africa. We shall receive them here as equals, irrespective of race, colour, creed or anything else. We shall receive them as true sportsmen, as we did on the occasion of the body-building world championships and others, which were all enormously successful. Forty-four countries competed in the bodybuilding world championships, and the participants included representatives from countries behind the Iron Curtain. I must admit, however, that I took a great liking to the people who represented countries behind the Iron Curtain and that I went out of my way to form personal friendships with them. I used to be Minister of Immigration, but fortunately I still have some influence as far as that department is concerned, and as I said at the bowling world championships, if there are any of the bowlers who would like to immigrate to South Africa they are very welcome. I said the same thing on the occasion of the bodybuilding world championships, but at that stage, of course, I was still Minister of Immigration as well. I can say this morning that I have in fact received such applications from bowlers. Those people would like to settle down here permanently. I am dealing with those applications at the moment and I must say that my hon. colleague from Immigration is very sympathetically disposed towards them. [Interjections.] A man and a woman who visited South Africa at the time of the body-building world championships and who live in a country behind the Iron Curtain have applied to me for permission to settle permanently in South Africa. This is the kind of good relationship which can be created by means of sport.

I really hope that Mr. Ordia will not just disregard the invitation I have addressed to him, because the invitation was made in an honest and sincere spirit. The hon. members are free to look up my speeches in Hansard, the speeches I have made as Minister of Sport and Recreation in the course of years. From the outset my slogan has been: “Let us get on with the game.” I have said that we should keep politics out of sport and I am still trying to do this to the best of my ability. Hon. members can testify to the wonderful progress which has been made in this respect. Nowhere will hon. members find that I have denigrated or criticized Mr. Ordia and his people in any way, because I have looked forward to the day when we would be able to show them the fruit of what has been achieved in this field in the Republic of South Africa. I have looked forward to being able to invite them and to show them what is happening here. I am not saying that what is happening here is perfect, but if they come here and if they are honest, they will certainly not be able to deny the following: Tremendous changes have taken place here, we are making an honest attempt, and they need not co-operate with the communists in exploiting sport in order to achieve political ends. If the Supreme Council for Sport in Africa is honest, it can come and acquaint itself with the facts in the Republic of South Africa and it need not try to get New Zealand kicked out. In any event, I do not think that council will be able to do this. If that council comes to us in an honest frame of mind, it can do much more for sport in co-operation with the Republic of South Africa. I really hope that this will bear the desired fruit.

I should like to reply to a few questions which have been asked by hon. members. I want to point out to the hon. member for Green Point that I realize that there are shortcomings as far as training in non-White sport is concerned. I have already given attention to this matter. It is a matter which it has not yet been possible to finalize, unfortunately, but we are very sympathetically disposed towards it. The department gives all the assistance of which it is capable and it is directly involved in all the multi-national sporting events. However, this is a very complicated matter and we must handle it with great circumspection. Fortunately I am able to say that we are making progress. I must point out once again that we must go about this with circumspection because it is a delicate matter which cannot just be settled before breakfast tomorrow morning. The hon. member also referred to the sport facilities at Upington. In this connection the hon. member’s figures are quite wrong. Does he accept that this is so?

Yes, the money which was allocated was less than I alleged. The figure I quoted reflects the total anticipated expenditure.

That is correct. Therefore I need not go into this matter any further.

As far as harbour facilities are concerned, I want to say that both I myself and my department are thoroughly aware of the great need for harbour facilities for pleasure boats along our coast. As the hon. member will know, a small amount has been made available for the first time in this financial year, and naturally we shall only be able to give our favourable consideration to the most urgent financial applications. However, I am very sympathetically disposed towards this matter. I had a serious discussion about this with my colleague, the Minister of Finance. Initially, Finance did not see its way clear to appropriating any amount in this connection, but we persevered and eventually we were fortunate enough to get a certain amount. However, we shall follow this up. As far as the Oceana Powerboat Club is concerned, I can tell the hon. member that we shall give them financial assistance. However, I cannot say at this stage what the amount will be, but we shall finalize this matter as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister if he is aware of the fact that in the last three or four years an amount of R1 million has been set aside under the Commerce and Industries Vote for the development of extensions to the harbour at Kalk Bay?

Yes, I am certainly aware of that fact. We are good friends of Mr. Grobbelaar and we collaborate closely with him. These matters are receiving our very serious attention and we hope to make an announcement as soon as possible in this connection. However, since these matters are being investigated at the moment, we are not in a position to make such an announcement yet. I promise to make the announcement as soon as it is humanly possible. We know how serious the situation is and we shall seriously try to bring relief as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask further, if the Department of Industries builds the extension to the harbour at Kalk Bay, will the hon. the Minister take it over from them as a small boat harbour?

We shall have to have discussions with that department and if we can arrange to take the harbour over, I can tell the hon. member that we shall be only too happy to do so.

*The hon. member for Green Point also said that the sport administrators should administer their respective kinds of sport themselves. Other hon. members also referred to this. I want to make a point we must not lose sight of, i.e. that all the sport bodies in South Africa are autonomous bodies and are not controlled by my department. My department renders a service to these sport bodies. We are trying to render as good a service as is humanly possible.

The hon. member for Green Point also referred to umbrella bodies in the field of sport. Certain kinds of sport such as athletics, rugby and several others have already established such umbrella bodies. My department and I are continually working in this direction and we give valuable advice and assistance to the sport bodies, because it is in accordance with policy that such umbrella bodies should be established on which the various population groups should be represented. I shall come to cricket in a little while and I shall give the hon. member some information in that respect.

The hon. member for Fauresmith is the chairman of our sport group. I want to say that he renders invaluable services to us in that capacity. I want to thank him, not only for those services which he renders, but also for the very good speech on sport which he made yesterday. I agree with him wholeheartedly and it is very important to underline here that we do not have a static policy, but a dynamic one. There are few things in which this is so strongly underlined as in sport. The hon. member referred to the fact that we should assist the administrations of non-White sport bodies. Within the framework of the existing set-up, my department and I try to provide as much assistance as we possibly can.

The hon. member for Bethlehem emphasized the exploitation of sport for political and other unholy ends. I agree wholeheartedly with what he said. It is true in most cases that the people who speak so lightly of South Africa in this connection are not acquainted with the facts. The hon. member made a very important point which I want to underline here.

†As I did under the National Education Vote, I want to appeal to the United Party, the PRP, the Press, the SABC and SATV and all our news media to carry this message out into the world so that the world can take cognizance of the tremendous changes that have taken place in sport in South Africa. I know what I am talking about. I have dealt with newsmen from the New York Times and from Europe, from England and from different other countries. I know that it has become quite a problem to get them to understand something of the tremendous changes that have taken place in the Republic in this regard. I have tried my best to inform them, and they are usually quite perplexed when they hear about it. They are reluctant to believe it, yet it is true. It is absolutely true.

Tell us about the changes.

If you do not know, visit me and I shall give you all the particulars. [Interjections.] My appeal is a very fair one. I appeal to hon. members and to all other people to keep the world informed about these things. It is in the interest of our country. That is the reason why I am so pleased with the discussion of this particular Vote. I am glad that we have not dwelt on a detailed analysis of a lot of trivial things. Heaven knows, I am so glad that I was not called upon to do that. We understand each other and we know what the policies are that are being followed in South Africa. I reiterate that we want to normalize things, and I promise the Opposition parties that, if they play the game, their contribution will not go unnoticed. South Africa can only benefit by that. There is no doubt as to that. My appeal to hon. members is that they should help the Government in this respect.

*If they fail to do so, the devil will take them. That I promise them! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton, as well as the hon. member for Green Point and several other hon. members, asked me questions in connection with cricket.

†I want to state that there is no one in this hon. House, that there is in fact no one in South Africa, who will be more pleased to see South Africa returned to the international cricket fold than this man, Piet Koornhof, speaking to you now. Cricket players and cricket administrators all know that. They know that I have done everything humanly possible to accomplish South Africa’s return to international cricket, and I shall continue to try and accomplish just that. I sincerely and genuinely mean it. However, it is quite a complicated issue. With all the goodwill in the world, it still remains a hell of a complicated issue.

*Mr. Chairman, it is like a fellow who goes fishing early at 4 o’clock in the morning, and who gets a devil of a crow’s nest in his fishing tackle. He has come to do some fishing, but the moment he gets that crow’s nest, he knows that his chances of catching a fish in the next few hours are absolutely nil. In the case of cricket it is very much the same. There a man must sit down and try patiently for hours on end to disentangle the crow’s nest with his cold fingers. When at last, after two breakfasts, he has succeeded in disentangling it, he can finally start fishing. In cricket the position is just the same.

†Therefore, hon. members must please understand that there is a tremendous reservoir of goodwill. There is …

Who is the crow’s nest here?

You are one of them. There is a tremendous measure of goodwill and many efforts are being made to get South Africa back into the international cricket fold. I have had discussions with cricket authorities in England, in Australia, and all over the show. There is a tremendous amount of goodwill both outside and inside South Africa. If we handle this very delicate issue carefully enough, I have no doubt whatsoever about the fact that we shall get back into international cricket shortly.

*Now I want to say to the hon. member for Sandton that obviously I have a very intimate knowledge of the Committee of Nine, which has been constituted from the ranks of Saca, of Sacboc, of the South African Bantu Cricket Association and so forth. There is not a single one of those people whom I do not know very well personally and who has not been in my office on several occasions. Just before the latest Richie Bernaud tour, I requested Mr. Varachia to invite the people who were giving him problems—this is to say, those on the extreme opposite side—to come and talk to me personally in my office. They came to see me and I can assure hon. members that it went off very well. So I am obviously well informed and I am glad that these bodies have finally got together. I also trust that we shall be able to solve our cricket problems. This committee of nine is corning to see me shortly, and I shall listen to their plans with great interest and try to help them to do what is required to get us back into the international cricket fold.

There are many other things I wanted to say, but I shall have to reply in writing to the arguments of hon. members on this side of the House to which I have not replied. I undertake to do so. My time is running out. I should have liked to give every one of the hon. members on the other side of the House a reply as well, but if they will accept it, I shall reply in writing to their requests as well.

I want to conclude, therefore, by thanking all the hon. members very sincerely for the positive discussion we have had here. I want to do so in two phrases which mean a great deal to me personally, to the sportsmen and to the sport administrators in South Africa. If we take this as our premise, all will be well with us, and this applies to the field of sport as well. The first one is very well-known, i.e.: “When that great Scorer comes to mark against your name, he asks not whether you won or lost, but how you played the game.” Another thought which means a great deal to me is this: “Over and beyond the eating and the sleeping, the mere living and dying, one after another, the spirit, that is what is inside us, invents, creates what is better than what was before. We are a thrust upwards amidst the problems of our time. We strive towards the growth of the human spirit, and we do that up to the last moment of possibility.” I think that as far as sport is concerned, we have managed to do so in this debate, and for that I want to express my sincere thanks to hon. members.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 18, and S.W.A. Vote No. 10— “Agricultural Economics and Marketing”, Vote No. 19 and S.W.A. Vote No. 11.— “Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure”, and Vote No. 20 and S.W.A. Vote No. 12.— “Agricultural Technical Services”:

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half-hour.

It goes without saying that we should like, on this occasion, to have a discussion on the important report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Marketing Act. For this reason it is a pleasure to me on this occasion to express my appreciation, in the first place, to the members who served on that commission, i.e. the hon. member for Bethal, the chairman of the commission, his colleagues, and especially those hon. members on this side of the House who also served on the commission, i.e. the hon. members for King William’s Town and Pietermaritzburg South. Dr. Moolman, who is no longer a member of this House, also served on this commission. I think that these gentlemen did an excellent job and that the experience they gained on their overseas trips was also of great value to them in drawing up this report. I think that in the future, when we have intensive discussions on marketing in this House, it will be of even greater value to them. I believe that the passing of the legislation in 1937 was a milestone for orderly agricultural marketing in South Africa. I need not remind hon. members of the fact that it was the UP Government which created that basis for orderly marketing in South Africa. In 1947 it was once again necessary for a commission to give attention to the control schemes which were applicable in terms of the Marketing Act. I have said that I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. members who did this work. If one looks at the schedules to the report, one comes to the conclusion that they must have worked through an enormous amount of written documents and that they must have heard an enormous amount of evidence.

However, I do not think it will be possible on this occasion today to discuss in detail each recommendation made by the hon. gentlemen. What will finally have to be done is that the major recommendations of the commission will have to be properly examined by the hon. the Minister’s department, the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, and the necessary amendments will then have to be made to the Marketing Act of 1968. As time goes by, one will be able to judge accurately which recommendations are valid and which are not.

However, I want to express my opinion even at this early stage in respect of certain recommendations which have been made. I consider the Marketing Council to be at the root of proper agricultural marketing in South Africa. I consider it to be the body which must give the necessary guidance, not only to the hon. the Minister, but also to the farmer of South Africa, so that the farmer, who for decades has been production orientated, may be provided with further training and may be made more marketing orientated. Of course, the council must also provide the farmer with proper marketing for his product. It is strange that the commission has had to point out that although the marketing of agricultural products has expanded so greatly over the years, the council has actually had a shortage of officials and has not received proper attention from the side of the authorities.

Such an important body, therefore, such an important spoke in the agricultural wheel, had to be reduced to a state, as it were, where the commission says that the Agricultural Marketing Council cannot carry on unless it can be properly accommodated, with regard to officials and to its functions, for example. For this reason, I also think that it should not only be a properly constituted body—the commission made certain recommendations in this connection as well—but that the Marketing Council should be in a position to perform its function. We have had repeated discussions in this House on the question of an agricultural planning council as an umbrella body which will be able to plan agriculture in a proper manner. Here one has a body, the Marketing Council, which must be able to provide one with projections of what the future requirements of agriculture will be. To a certain extent it must be able to say exactly what the production costs are and what the possibilities are, not only in the domestic market, but in the foreign market as well. There are many functions which the body will have to perform.

We can produce the best Marketing Act, therefore, and we can give the Minister all the necessary powers so that he will not only have a veto, but will have the final say in the determination of prices. I do agree with this. However, we can do all these things, but if the Marketing Council does not function properly, we cannot have orderly marketing for our agricultural products in South Africa. For this reason, the liaison which he wants with other control bodies, such as the control boards, is also closely related to the size of his staff and the qualified professional people who serve on the Marketing Council. I want to say to the hon. the Minister and to the hon. member for Bethal, who was the chairman of that commission, that there can be no doubt about the recommendations aimed at achieving this end. A start must be made; that is the crux of the matter.

As regards certain other recommendations, such as those concerning the power of the hon. the Minister, I have already said that we can undoubtedly think in that direction. I am sorry that the commission had to express its opinion at one stage on the subject of the subsidizing of agricultural prices. The attitude of this side of the House is very simple. We have never found any way of narrowing the gap between the consumer and the producer in connection with certain vital agricultural products other than a consumer subsidy. We have never found any other solution to this. For this reason, I found it surprising that the commission felt that consumer subsidies in South Africa would have to be gradually reduced at some stage and that the money used for the consumer subsidies should rather be used in a different way for stimulating production. Now I want to say at once that as far as the foreseeable future is concerned, I honestly cannot see—and this is embodied in our agricultural approach which we stated more than ten years ago—how one can ever get away from the situation of having an enormous group of people in South Africa who live on or under the breadline. Because of our racial composition in South Africa, that situation will endure. Therefore one must keep a check on the prices in order to help those people.

Secondly, when the farmer’s price has to be increased because of higher production costs, inflation, etc., this has to be done; it cannot be refused. The farmer’s price cannot remain constant either, nor can it go down. This has happened in the past, and it has caused producers to leave the country. Consequently we may forget about taking steps which will reduce the farmer’s income. One should rather take steps to ensure that his prices, too, will keep pace with the rise in production costs. If this is done, and you have to protect the consumer at the same time, what solution is there other than to have these consumer subsidies? My study of agriculture, not only in this country, but in other countries of the world as well, has always shown me that the other countries, too, have only been able to proceed from the standpoint that a consumer subsidy is necessary under certain circumstances. If they think it is a sound practice, how much more essential a consumer subsidy is in South Africa, with the position we have here! For this reason I want to say at once that as far as I am concerned, I am unable, in the final analysis, to give my support, and, I believe, the support of my party, to the abolition of consumer subsidies. Under the present circumstances this cannot be done. I must say that the commission covered itself quite well and did not think either that it could be done overnight. But I want to go so far as to say that it will not be possible to accept a measure aimed at reducing it now.

While we are on the subject, I just want to refer to the latest announcements by the hon. the Minister in connection with the maize price. Here one has a situation where the hon. gentleman has to increase the maize price by R6 a ton to R65 a ton. That difference of R6 is paid in the first place by the State in the form of R3 a ton, and the other R3 has to be paid by the producer. According to the information available to me, very little criticism has yet been expressed against the fact that the State has to pay this amount. What has given rise to criticism? The criticism comes from the maize farmer himself, because he has to pay the R3 a ton from the Stabilization Fund and the profit which he has made on his product during the past year by means of export. I do not blame the maize farmers, for I think they are absolutely correct, because this is money which belongs to them. However, is it so impossible for that difference also to be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund? Then only will one be able to do justice to the consumer as well as the producer. I do not want to say much more about the report, because the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and the hon. member for King William’s Town will raise further matters in connection with it.

I should like to devote my attention to certain objectives which agriculture as a whole ought to have today in the prevailing circumstances. It has been said before in this House that the function of agriculture is not only to feed the nation and to stimulate industrial development which centres around agriculture. The purpose of agriculture is not only to provide for the immediate needs of South Africa. This House, the hon. the Minister and his departments, must be prepared to take concerted action to break new ground. When the hon. the Minister makes speeches from time to time, I do not disagree with him on this matter, because I know that he, too, is prepared to venture a little further than we are at the moment. A previous Minister of Agriculture often told this House that surpluses were a problem in agriculture. Hon. members on this side of the House told him that surpluses were temporary, while shortages could be permanent. However, the hon. the Minister has indicated his approach in this respect by pointing out that he, too, considers surpluses in the agricultural industry to be temporary, and that he would not want the industry to have shortages in the long run. When we say that we should break new ground, what is it that is worrying hon. members on this side of the House? What is worrying us is that 80% of the farmers are responsible for only 20% of the agricultural production. Hon. members on this side of the House believe that all our work, planning and energy must be aimed at improving the vertical potential of the 80% of the farmers who may be small, average and perhaps even inefficient farmers.

†The 20% of the farmers who are producing 80% of our agricultural production, are, of course, important to us. Under normal circumstances you will find, however, that the 20% of the farmers who produce 80% of the agricultural production are people who are, from a capital and financial point of view, normally very strong indeed and very independent. Invariably you will find amongst the 20% of highly productive farmers people who have had a good agricultural training. They have had expert training. You will also find that if they did not have the training themselves, they are in a position to pay others as foremen, as managers, others who are trained to help and assist them with their agricultural production. You will also find that this 20% are not only financially independent and strong, but they know not only the right people but also the right instances, banks, financial institutions and they have an entrée to the most important people in South Africa who are dealing with the agricultural industry. You also invariably find that they are in a position to pay for their labour. They can provide the best housing and the best facilities for their farm labour.

*From the nature of the case, they are in a privileged position in being able to do all those things. However, let us now look at that man who does not belong to that 20%, the man who belongs to the 80% which is responsible for only 20% of the agricultural production. He does not have that influence. He does not always know the right bodies. He does not always know the right people and usually he cannot provide the best housing for his labourers. Often his credit standing leaves much to be desired, but he has to contend with tremendously high production costs, just as the big farmer does. Often he has a shortage of working capital. Our appeal to the hon. the Minister today is that we should take another look at the true position of that type of farmer. After all, many of us have seen people rise from small beginnings to achieve success. Such a person began on a holding, for example, and made a success of it. Then he obtained assistance from the Land Bank and from the Department of Agricultural Credit, and in the long run, by winning all the time, that man made a success of his farming operations. Some people began as managers or foremen of established farmers, and after a few years such a man struck out on his own, and eventually he became an established farmer.

This is a matter of concern to this side of the House, if we want to break new ground, if we want to push up our agricultural potential in a vertical sense, if we want to feed all the mouths there will be in the future: Are we giving enough attention in South Africa to that 80% of the farmers who may be small, who may be average and who may be inefficient in some respects? What can be done for these people? My request to the hon. the Minister is that we should make a survey of these people at some stage. This will have to be done soon, because the demands are there, the requirements are there, the future demands which will be made upon agriculture are not growing smaller; they are becoming greater and greater. It is quite clear that the numbers of these people are steadily declining. I read in one of our agricultural publications that some people believe that there are approximately 50 000 farmers left at the moment. I doubt whether this is so. The number must be a little higher than that. However, the number of farmers is considerably smaller than it was some years ago. Can we not make a survey of these people and see what their potential is? What are their requirements? What is their personal potential? What initiative do they have? What are their managerial abilities in this respect? What handicaps do those people have? Can those handicaps be removed by training and guidance? Are those people handicapped by a shortage of working capital which will enable them to expand, to grow in a vertical sense? When we have made a survey of this kind and when we have obtained future projections, our whole approach to agriculture must be aimed at helping this kind of person. Large parts of the country can support stock-farming as well, even the grain-producing districts of the hon. the Deputy Minister, the grain-producing districts of the hon. member for Malmesbury and of the hon. member for Moorreesburg. Dozens of examples could be mentioned to illustrate this point. However, are those people financially able to carry on stock-farming on an intensive scale—not necessarily on the land itself—in order to increase our milk production in South Africa and to increase our meat and wool production in South Africa?

I could say the same about the extensive parts of our country which still have a tremendous potential. However, I believe that some farmers have already become too big. The business of that kind of farmer has become too big for him to handle by himself. Then there is the large number of average farmers and small farmers who do not have the necessary capital at this stage, because capital is tremendously expensive. Although they do not have the capital, the possibility of developing does exist for them. This is the way the situation will have to improve, in our opinion. Farmers do not have the necessary capital today, because of the fact that capital is so expensive. For this reason I want to repeat what we have said before. The Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit should in actual fact be the Department of Agricultural Financing. This could be a kind of development corporation for agriculture. Not that it would want to buy farms and to carry on farming operations itself. After all, the IDC conducts a thorough investigation into the potential of the industrialist, whether he be a small or a big industrialist, and it sees what can be done for him. We on this side believe that impetus can be given to the agricultural industry in this way. By doing this, we shall be able to give new vitality and a sense of purpose to this 80% of the farmers, who presently account for 20% of our agricultural production, and then that hon. Minister and others in this House will achieve what has to be achieved, and that is to ensure that we never have any food shortages in South Africa.

However, this involves another requirement as well. This is something I have already pointed out. Those people will have to be given the right kind of guidance. I was terribly shocked to see the truth, which we have long known, stated in such uncompromising terms as was done by the Secretary of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in his latest report in connection with agricultural scientists. On page 3 it says—

And now comes the important sentence—

People speak of advance planning and they speak of the tremendous demands that are made upon agriculture, but then we are faced with the truths which are conveyed to us by the Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services. “It is hanging in the balance.” Something will have to be done about this kind of thing. It will not serve any purpose for us to make surveys and to be concerned about 80% of the farmers who produce 20% of the production if we find that this is the situation. Surely the ideal should be that there should be no magisterial district in the rural areas in South Africa which does not have at least an agricultural extension officer and a technical officer. We must take account of the fact that only 20% of our farmers have had formal agricultural training, and then the question arises of who is to provide instruction and information in the agricultural sphere and who is to fill the vacuum which has been left by the fact that so few farmers have enjoyed formal agricultural training. Who is to assist in the extension services and who is to address the farmers? Surely these people are the ones, and if we have a shortage of them, we cannot expect to make a success of agriculture in the long run.

There is a second matter which I want to raise with a view to assisting that 80% of the farmers, not only financially, but in other ways as well. We shall have to look at the training facilities that are available for the labourers of the farmers. I recently read in a magazine— anyone who is involved in agriculture know that this is so—that of the 230 000 people who drive tractors, only 13 000 have had any training in the proper handling and maintenance of a tractor. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Newton Park referred with appreciation to the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Marketing Act, and also praised certain of the recommendations the commission made. He had misgivings, however, about certain recommendations the commission made. In the course of my speech I shall refer to some of the recommendations, and react at the same time to some of the statements made by the hon. member.

It is probably a high-water mark for any commission of inquiry when, after three years, it has reached the stage when its report is submitted and tabled in this House. As chairman of the commission I want to express my thanks to the members of the commission. Despite the fact that the members of the commission were divided in their political attitude—this must inevitably be the case since we are politicians who represent different parties—we gave proper consideration to the matter we had to investigate and to the terms of reference we received. We drew up a report to the best of our ability which, as far as the essential recommendations are concerned, was unanimously agreed to by the commission. There are certain matters in regard to which we differed with one another, and hon. members have probably noticed the occasional footnote in this regard.

On this occasion I should like to express my thanks to the secretariate of the commission. I am referring in particular to the secretary, Mr. Van der Westhuizen, the deputy secretary, Mr. Van Wyk, and the advisers, Mr. Schalk du Toit of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Dr. Gregory, vice-chairman of the Marketing Council, and Dr. Claude van der Merwe whom we were privileged to be able to co-opt into the activities of the commission last year for a short time after he had resigned as Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing.

In point of fact the commission began its activities on 30 May 1973 when its terms of reference were published. After the publication of the terms of reference we received a large number of written representation and memorandums. To give hon. members an idea of the extensiveness of our activities, I could point out that we received written memorandums from all of the 21 control boards, as well as from the Meat Trade Control Board of South West Africa. At that stage the latest control board, i.e. the Cotton Board, was not yet functioning properly. We also received written representations from 22 producers’ organizations, from agricultural unions and from agricultural co-operatives. In addition 36 representations were received from particular associations representative of commerce and industry and the manufacturing industry. Representations were also received from 11 Government departments and statutory bodies and from 10 consumer organizations. A total of 76 documents were received in this connection of the 76, 45 organizations also gave oral evidence before the commission.

After the commission had obtained and studied all these particulars, the modus operandi it adopted was to draw up a provisional standpoint. Subsequently we made a study of 15 marketing systems in the Western World, including those of the USA, the EEC, Australia, the United Kingdom, etc. The investigative material which the commission had its disposal therefore extended over a very wide field. We collected a great deal of information to enable us to carry out our terms of reference.

Since the introduction and application of the Marketing Act of 1947, after the then commission had investigated the marketing system in South Africa, tremendous development has taken place. In 1947 there were only nine control boards and nine schemes. Today we have 22 control boards, and some of the larger control boards control as many as three schemes. The entire control scheme has therefore developed tremendously since that time, so much so that almost 90% of the value of agricultural produce today is controlled under the Marketing Act. Our task was therefore far greater than that of the 1947 commission. We had to have serious regard to the fact that, over a period of 29 years, a marketing structure had developed in South Africa with the control board system as basis. We have 22 of them, with their various schemes, and all of them have a measure of autonomy. Over this entire system we have, as umbrella organization, the National Marketing Council, which performs a co-ordinating function and which advises the Minister from time to time on the application of the large diversity of schemes. The control board system has also, over this period, become firmly established. A recommendation which would bring about a radical change in the present system would be anything but in the interests of agriculture. The commission therefore proceeded upon the standpoint that, fundamentally, the present control board system had to be adhered to, and that the problem we were dealing with was a •structural problem and that it was therefore simply a question of adaptations and adjustments in order to rectify the entire position. Therefore the commission is not coming forward with any radical recommendations. The recommendations of the commission are, we believe, practicable. We also believe that the recommendations are acceptable.

The commission gave very high priority to the element of the acceptability and practicability of its report. We did not want to introduce a report which would be shelved. We wanted to introduce a report which could be used. We feel that it should be administratively possible for all bodies dealing with the implementation of this report—if the recommendation should be accepted—to be geared to it administratively. All the control boards, all the various departments, have the organizational machinery to be able to put it into operation immediately. However, it is also important to realize that the commission is desirous that the Government should regard its report as a unity, and not as a group of isolated recommendations, because most of the important recommendations are interrelated.

I want to point out certain of the key recommendations, the essential recommendations, and the first one to which I want to draw attention, is the one to which the hon. member for Newton Park also referred. This is the position of the National Marketing Council. This is the pivot on which the entire system turns. The evidence which the commission obtained in this regard was overwhelming. It indicated that the need existed for the National Marketing Council to be expanded, both in status as well as in expertise. The commission therefore set itself the task of achieving that object. The weakness in the structure lies in the very fact that the National Marketing Council does not have the powers nor the expertise to carry out its co-ordinating function properly and satisfactorily, particularly in view of the fact that it is dealing with a tremendously extensive marketing system involving 22 boards. One could almost say that those boards have already become “empires”. I am of course saying this with great respect, for many of those boards have done extremely valuable work. During our investigations overseas we in fact encountered few marketing systems which were in any way comparable to those in South Africa.

The danger that began to develop, however, was that as a result of the great diversity of control boards, with their specific degree of autonomy, a sectional viewpoint was beginning to gain ground in the world of agriculture. This was something which in the long run could inevitably create an imbalance in production, and it had to be prevented as quickly as possible by remedying this matter. The commission also tried to expand the composition of the National Marketing Council to eight members, of whom six have to be economists. The exclusive function of the council is the handling of agricultural economic matters. Therefore it is not becoming a council which is representative of certain organizations. It is primarily a council of experts. The commission also discussed one of the other major deficiencies—and on this I want to place very heavy emphasis. These are the services which have to be rendered to the National Marketing Council if it is expected to continue with its co-ordinating and advisory task. The services which the council is receiving at present are being rendered by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. These are agricultural statistical services. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am rising merely to afford the hon. member for Bethal an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. member for Newton Park. It was found, if the National Marketing Council had to be expanded, those services would very definitely have to be improved; in particular the agricultural economic statistical services would have to be improved. We ourselves recommended that if this could not be done by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, a special bureau ought to be established from which the National Marketing Council could obtain its information, so that it could process the information properly.

Mr. Chairman, you will understand that, if the National Marketing Council is expected to fulfil a co-ordinating function, and if all price recommendations are sent to the National Marketing Council, the council should have the power and the knowledge to be able to process them. In its very important liaison with the control boards the National Marketing Council has access to most of the meetings concerned with prices, and in fact to the discussions held by the control boards. It is therefore clearly apparent that the liaison in that respect has to be very sound.

The commission also made another very important recommendation in regard to the National Marketing Council. This was in connection with one of the things we saw overseas, a system which is being applied in Canada, in Australia and elsewhere. Under that system the overseas counterparts of the National Marketing Council hold annual or biannual conferences on agricultural prospects. This ties in with the idea expressed by the hon. member for Newton Park, i.e. that this matter could to a great extent be termed a planning function. It is a function which will be fulfilled by the annual submission of agricultural prospects to the organizations concerned, the various departments in agriculture, commerce and industry, as well as to the Land Bank and to the Co-ordinating Consumers Board. The conferences are attended by representatives of all the abovementioned bodies. The various reports are made available to every representative. They are discussed there, information is furnished and all the various bodies make their contributions in regard to the planning in the light of the prospects which were presented. This is a very important function of the National Marketing Council. Now, hon. members will understand that the functioning of the National Marketing Council relies very heavily on the statistics and services it has to receive from the department. We trust that the hon. the Minister will give attention to this matter.

The commission, in its considerations and recommendations, also had proper regard to the two most important parties in the entire marketing set-up, i.e. the primary producer, who is the first starting point of marketing and the consumer, who is the terminal point of the marketing process. The producer in South Africa has always considered the Marketing Act to be his security when it comes to the marketing and prices of his produce. Over the years he has developed a confidence and obtained a vested interest in this control board. For this reason the commission unanimously decided that we should adhere to the statutory majority of agricultural producers on the control boards. However, there are certain problems in this regard; they are probably only human, and I am not reproaching our producers because of them. To ensure proper co-ordination the commission naturally deprived the control boards of certain powers of recommendation in regard to prices. The control boards now simply recommend prices to the National Marketing Council. This does not mean that the producer has no further say or participating in the pricing of his product. He still has liaison with the National Marketing Council. The commission foresaw this problem and for that reason made a recommendation to the effect that before the National Marketing Council goes to the hon. Minister with a maize price, for example, with which the control board does not agree, then it is the idea of the commission that the control board in question should first be consulted again. All problems must be ironed out at control board level and at National Marketing Council level, so that when the price eventually reaches the Minister, it will be a well-considered price in the interests of agriculture, and not only in the interests of agriculture, but also in the interests of the country. We have also given added status to the National Marketing Council by proposing that its chairman should be a member of the Economic Advisory Council of the hon. the Prime Minister. Therefore, our producers need have no fear that their say in the price formation will be prejudiced in this way. There will merely be a better co-ordinated form of price determination.

In conclusion I should like to refer to the position of the consumer. If one considers the recommendations of this commission, they seem to be drastic because we have abolished consumer representation on the 22 boards. We have done this for one important reason, the reason being that it is in the interests of the consumers themselves. We received overwhelming evidence in this regard. The isolated consumer representative who serves in boards with a membership of 22 to 23, by rights has very little to do in the actual activities of that control board with consumer matters. For this reason the commission has recommended that we should rather do away with these representatives and in their place should recognize an existing statutory body, the Co-ordinating Consumers Board, and require the National Marketing Council by law, which is now a body with greater expertise, to hold talks annually or biannually with the Co-ordinating Consumers Board so that they may specifically and in a specialized way discuss consumer problems in the marketing set-up of agricultural produce. We think we are in that way creating a far better dispensation for the consumer in South Africa. We also saw this in England, where there are no consumers serving on the control boards. In fact, the position there is that the control boards consist only of producers, but a statutory obligation is imposed on the control boards to hold negotiations with consumer organizations from time to time. Consequently the consumers, in my opinion, are in a far better position.

To satisfy the consumer I have a single proposal to make to the hon. the Minister. The National Marketing Council consists of eight members, and it has already been recommended that the hon. the Minister should also nominate two economists from the private sector on a contractual basis. The Minister could, with the appointment of these two economists, consider discussing this matter with the Co-ordinating Consumers Board. Perhaps he could ascertain what their opinion is and whether they feel that the persons who are appointed have sufficient knowledge of consumer matters. To achieve confidence in the scheme, the confidence of the consumer has to be gained, as well as the confidence of the producer.

I want to conclude my requesting the hon. the Minister to accept and to implement the recommendations of the commission as soon as possible. We believe that they are sound recommendations.

Mr. Chairman, it is a particularly pleasant privilege for me to speak after the hon. member for Bethal, the chairman of this commission, whose report is before the House today. In the first instance, as member of the commission, I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon. member for Bethal for the very competent way in which he acted as chairman of the commission. As someone who was in very close contact with him, I can assure hon. members of the fact that he worked day and night on the report. He spared no trouble, nor did he hesitate to do everything in his power to make a success of the recommendations and the report. Therefore I know that the report will in future be known as the Wentzel report, and that it will be of immense value to agriculture in South Africa. I also believe that the recommendations of the report will be referred to as recommendations which ushered in a new era in agriculture in South Africa as far as marketing is concerned. I should like to thank my hon. colleague sincerely for the way in which he acted and for the competent way in which he presented the matter in the House today. Everyone in the House will agree with me that the hon. member summarized the recommendations of the committee very concisely and correctly, in a nutshell in fact. We want to thank him very much for doing so.

I want to agree with the hon. member for Bethal that the recommendations should be seen as a whole. Many of the recommendations are far-reaching and are aimed at improving the system. But after all, they are not so drastic that they cannot be accepted. Since we have had development over a long period of 40 years, it is not easy to come forward with recommendations which will solve the problem, as we see it, and at the same time satisfy both the producer and the consumer and give the hon. the Minister the opportunity of accepting the report. In my opinion the commission succeeded very well in this. I should like to express the hope and confidence that, since we have already been working on this report for three years and since agriculture in South Africa, like any other branch of the national economy, is dynamic, the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to accepting the report as a whole and implementing it as soon as possible.

I am very pleased that the hon. member for Newton Park said that this commission did an excellent job of work, and I know that he meant it sincerely. The hon. member mentioned quite a number of matters here. Inter alia he also mentioned the agricultural planning council once again. It is my considered opinion that the National Marketing Council which has been recommended by the commission, will be able to fulfil and meet fully in its essence and in its normal activities, the ideal which the hon. member for Newton Park has of establishing an agricultural planning advisory board. I think that if we could expand this national marketing council in this way, the hon. member would be quite satisfied with its activities and with what will be accomplished through the activities of that council.

The hon. member also spoke about the subsidizing of agricultural products in South Africa and we know what the hon. member’s standpoint in this connection has been over the years. I do not want to differ with the hon. member once again today. I think that we should seek other methods, because there are a few deficiencies in this high rate of subsidization of agricultural produce prices. He mentioned the example of the maize price, where the consumer price is R6 per ton cheaper than the producer’s price. I just want to mention two problems. These are that at the moment— there are the figures which I received from the department—a 90 kg bag of sifted flour costs R6,55 here in the Cape complex, a bag of unsifted flour R6,55, while a 90 kg bag of yellow maize meal costs R6,67. In other words, we can see that there is a very fine balance in regard to how far one can go with subsidies. Where the intention is to transfer the subsidy on wheat in the interests of the consumer, one can very easily have the situation where one makes wheat so cheap that the farmer in the Western Province will feed his pigs on flour instead of maize meal.

Don’t you think of the people too?

Yes, that is correct, but I am sorry that people here in the Western Province—we as Freestaters realize this very well—do not make as much use of maize meal as in the Free State. [Interjections.] The hon. member said that we should stake a further claim in agriculture. As far as a difference of R6 per ton in the price of maize is concerned, where we have a free customs union agreement with our Bantu states and with Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana, we must remember that that major difference, in which they are participants, is actually a discouraging factor with respect to production in those countries, as well as in our homelands which we are now trying to get off the ground as far as agricultural production is concerned. As long as we have such major differences between the producer’s price and the consumer’s price, it will be very difficult to inspire and activate these people in regard to production. Therefore we have to be very careful about adopting the standpoint which that hon. member adopted in this connection.

But I also want to agree with him on another matter. Agriculture has become very important today, and as a result of world food shortages, inflation and other reasons, agriculture and farming have actually become much sought after professions today and people are inclined, since they know that agriculture has such a great future, to invest in it. Therefore the competition in agriculture will become keener. In one of my speeches the other day I pointed out that there is sound competition in agriculture, that agriculture is probably one of the industries in which there is the best and soundest competition, but that we should be concerned about the large number of small farmers who are producing less and less and who will find it more and more difficult to compete. But I also referred on a previous occasion to the fact that we had identified the bottlenecks in this connection and that the NP Government was making provision, not only at the time, but had been doing so for a long time prior to that, for the requirements of the smaller farmers, so that they could be economically strong and sound and could make a contribution towards a competitive economy. Therefore I just want to add, to what the hon. member said, that we should be aware of this fact that we shall have to look after these people in future, and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to do his best so that, as far as agricultural credit is concerned, we do in fact ensure that the necessary funds are available for the purchase of land so that we can consolidate these people further.

I have now devoted a great deal of my time to the hon. member and I should like to refer to the report once again. When one studies this report, it is essential to look at the terms of reference of the commission first. The first term of reference deals with the task of co-ordination. Since agriculture is dynamic and since it has also developed over a period of 40 years, it has been found that in places things are a little out of kilter in agriculture. Therefore it was the commission’s task in the first place to try and eliminate these bottlenecks. Therefore one of the most important terms of reference of the commission was to investigate the task of co-ordination. As far as this is concerned, and attempt was made to make this task an integral part of the task of the National Marketing Council. Unfortunately time does not permit, but I could present many reasons why agriculture should have an even, orderly development, as is the case in any other sphere. Therefore the commission accepted certain principles. The first principle is that control is essential in agriculture. Hon. members may read this in the report. The application of control in terms of the general economic policy, is a matter to which the commission also gave high priority. Our point of view is that the measures in terms of the Marketing Act should be in line with the general economic policy.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Heilbron and the hon. member for Bethal have dealt with the recommendations of the commission of inquiry, and I want to say quite frankly that they have done it very well. I want to come back to certain matters mentioned by the hon. member for Heilbron in his speech. I just want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Bethal for the competent and firm way in which he acted in his capacity as chairman of the commission, for the way in which he performed his duties and led the commission and for the way he handled the commission. It must be said that had it not been for his firm conduct, the commission would have sat for many more months, if not years. He was always tolerant and he always took minority standpoints into consideration, but he never did so to the point of weakness. When it was necessary to silence talkative members, he did not hesitate to do so. I am glad that he did so.

The hon. member for Heilbron expressed some disagreement with the standpoint of the hon. member for Newton Park, and now I am afraid that I must also disagree with the hon. member for Newton Park, because he disagreed with me. This is about the question of consumer subsidies. I supported the recommendations of the commission with regard to consumer subsidies. Hon. members must remember that the commission’s standpoint is that the commission cannot give its unqualified support to the principle of a general subsidy on selected products. As a general principle, the majority of the commissioners recommended that it should be the policy, as in the case of butter, to reduce systematically the subsidies on flour and maize, bearing in mind that these form part of the price structure and that a sudden reduction of the subsidy may cause disruption. I support this standpoint of the commission, because subsidies is an expensive way of subsidizing the underprivileged. It is a subsidy for the underprivileged, after all. The hon. member for Heilbron defended this standpoint well, but I can defend it even better.

I want to point out to hon. members that as far as the price of bread is concerned, every cent of the subsidy on the price of bread costs the taxpayer of South Africa R15 million. If the R65 million which is spent on subsidies at the moment were to be given to the pensioners instead, the pensions could be increased by 50%, and the Government would derive much greater advantage from it. If this amount were to be spent on education, so that people could be trained in order to earn a better salary, it would be much better spent than it is today. I still proceed from the point of view that I am no socialist. If a man cannot make a decent living in this country, unless he is old or infirm or disabled, there is something wrong with him. These subsidies create a complete inbalance between the prices of products. The low price of maize, which is not only low because it is subsidized, but which is also low in comparison to the world price, has caused the consumption of chicken to be just as high as that of beef and pork together. This has an adverse effect on beef products.

What about the consumer?

What about the poor beef producer? Why must the chicken farmer be favoured above the beef producer? I am not going to say any more about the recommendations of the commission at this stage, because this report has been lying on the Table for a month, and anyone who is interested in it could have read it over and over again. We can argue here about what we should accept and what we should not accept, but we cannot deal with the report now. We can only deal with the criticism. Let me say right at the outset that I am very disappointed indeed about the little comment there has been on this report. One would have thought that the South African Agricultural Union would have reacted long ago. One would have thought that the Meat Board and all the other boards and bodies which have been affected would have commented on this. However, we have had no comment. The Financial Times published a fine summary of it.

It just shows you what a good job the National Party members did.

Yes, but I also assisted in drawing up the report. I want to recommend the Financial Times of 14 May 1976. It contains an excellent article on this subject. The article appears under the headline “Agriculture tackling a root problem”. Unfortunately I have lost a cutting of an article which appeared in the Farmer’s Weekly, and nowhere in the entire Parliamentary building have I been able to obtain a copy of this edition. I have been informed that it will only be available in a month’s time. The gist of the criticism expressed in that article is more or less that there are too many control boards. I shall have more to say about this matter in a moment. Die Landbouweekblad was more or less favourable in its comment. Its greatest criticism was that we were giving too many powers to the Minister; in other words, that the final price determination was entrusted to the Minister.

I agree with Die Landbouweekblad.

The hon. member says he agrees with Die Landbouweekblad. However, someone must bear the final responsibility for the price determinations. If the determination is done by the control boards alone, sectional interests will come into question, for that is only human. So one cannot leave it at that. The Marketing Council is not responsible to this Parliament. The only person who is responsible to this Parliament is the Minister, so he is the person who should bear that responsibility. In the past, under the old system, the Minister always had the veto, and if he was unable to accept the prices recommended by the farmers, the recommendation was referred back, but in the end the Minister determined the price in any event. However, this caused long delays and a lot of fuss and bother. Now we say that the Minister should do the work and accept the responsibility.

The greatest criticism was that we had not reduced the number of boards, that the 22 control boards were far too many. When we began the work of the commission our first objective was in fact to reduce the number of boards, these empires of which people spoke. We wanted to do this, but we could not. At any rate, we tried. We have 22 control boards, while Canada has 122, and they do not think they have too many. The annual cost entailed by these 22 boards is R13½ million, while they control 80% of the total agricultural products to the value of approximately R2 500 million. They do this at a cost of R13½ million a year, which amounts to 0,6%. This is a small amount indeed. There is a saying to the effect that one must not have control merely for the sake of control. Similarly, one cannot combine merely for the sake of combining. Surely there must be a good reason and a clear purpose to the whole set-up. We then considered what we could really combine. I think it was the Farmer’s Weekly which said that the Maize Board and the Wheat Board should be combined, but the Maize Board and the Wheat Board each has its own buildings. So if those two were to be combined, a whole new complex would have to be built to accommodate all the officials, and what would this cost in these times of inflation? We even considered whether we could not use a joint computer service. We appointed an interdepartmental committee to investigate that possibility. Do hon. members know what they found? We found that not even this would be possible, because it would not pay.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think anyone will disagree with me if I say that the farmers of South Africa are proud of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. After all, they have good reason to be proud of him. I think that the whole of South Africa may also be proud of our agriculture, and when I refer to agriculture, I do not only mean the farmers who produce. I also mean the whole agricultural structure in which the various departments of agriculture are involved. This afternoon I want to convey my appreciation to the departments of agriculture that made it possible for us to institute inquiries into the marketing systems which are followed in South Africa and in other countries. Hence our appreciation for the work these departments have done,

There may be people who adopt an honest approach to agriculture; there are probably many people as well who have the interests of agriculture in South Africa at heart. However, I do not know of anyone who adopts a more honest approach to agriculture or who has the interests of agriculture more at heart than the hon. member for Bethal. Therefore, we as members of the commission were proud of him as chairman. Allow me to express appreciation to all the members of this commission for their enthusiastic cooperation. It was a privilege to be able to work together with those people. I also think that over the years that we worked together, a bond of friendship developed—and here I am also referring to the bonds of friendship between members on that side of the House and members on this side of the House. It is a bond of which we, who served on that commission, are proud and for which we are also very grateful.

While we were carrying out this inquiry, we had the privilege of meeting agricultural leaders throughout the world. We were also able to hold intensive discussions with officials of various agricultural departments in various countries. One is grateful to be able to testify that we did not meet better farmers than those in South Africa. Nor did we meet officials anywhere who were so concerned with the interests of agriculture as the officials of the departments of agriculture in South Africa. They are among the most outstanding people one could hope to involve in such an industry as this.

On our return from our overseas tour we brought back a realization of the qualify of our farmers and administration. I think I shall be permitted to make a few general remarks at the outset about the report of this Commission of Inquiry into the Marketing Act. The following question may occur to the uninformed as well as to the outsider: Could this commission not have tabled a more dramatic and spectacular report? If one looks at our terms of reference superficially as well as our sphere of inquiry, it is probably possible to wonder whether this commission could not have tabled a more spectacular and dramatic report.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, before we adjourned for lunch I was expressing appreciation of various members who cooperated to make this commission of inquiry possible for us and to make it a water-tight one. However, I unfortunately omitted to mention two people, for which I crave forgiveness. I should now like to express my appreciation towards them. In the first place I want to refer to our Deputy Minister, Mr. Malan, who took part in a portion of the inquiry and who, especially when we were overseas, gave us as members of the commission confidence with his dignified conduct and in this way also presented an image of South African agriculture overseas, which was sound and strong. We want to thank him for this. In the second place I want to refer to Dr. Claude van der Merwe, to whom reference already has been made. In the past week or so we heard that Dr. Van der Merwe lost his wife, and I think it is no more than right that we, as members of the commission as well as members of this House, should convey our sincere condolences to Dr. Claude van der Merwe. We want to assure him of our prayers at this time which cannot be an easy one for him.

Sir, before the adjournment I said that seen in a superficial sense, the uninformed person could possibly ask whether we could not have tabled a more dramatic or spectacular report. I think that one can react to this by saying that, had we not remained true to the terms of reference to which I have already referred and had we not been honest towards agriculture and the various control boards and marketing systems, it may perhaps have been possible to table a more dramatic and spectacular report. Consequently we could, in a report like this, have given wider powers to the control boards, or emasculated the control boards entirely. We could have also recommended that more control boards should be strictly limited and amalgamated. Had we done this, agriculture and the producers in South Africa would, however, have paid for it, and the consumer would have suffered as a result. I think that this is the spirit in which this report must be judged, because it was always the ideal of members of the commission to recommend nothing which would mean that the farmers in South Africa would suffer as a result or that the consumer in South Africa would have to pay more for it.

Sir, I think we agree that there was not much wrong with the marketing system and the system of control boards in South Africa. The more opportunity we had of studying other schemes and systems, the more we realized that in South Africa, something had developed which was suited to South African circumstances. I remember that the hon. member for Heilbron said jokingly on one occasion in Britain, after he had inspected their system, that the more people one meets, the fonder one becomes of one’s dog. I think that this was also true of the system in South Africa. The more we saw, the more we realized that things have been created in South Africa which rests upon foundations which in turn had their origin in agriculture.

Sir, it is clear to me that, throughout the entire world, even in the EEC countries, there is a striving towards stability in agriculture and stability as far as food is concerned. This stability may be achieved by making sure of a few factors. The one is to create a sound price structure for the producer and on the other hand also to ensure that fair prices are paid by the consumer for food. This is a problem which is not experienced in South Africa alone, but which prevails throughout the world at the moment. Had the situation in South Africa been such that one could simply follow the economic law of supply and demand in a slavish manner, the problem would probably have been less significant. However, the circumstances in South Africa are of such a nature that one cannot adhere strictly to this law. This is as a result of the interindependence of the various commodities or the various branches of the industry but also as a result of the agricultural structure in South Africa which, other than in other countries, is to a large degree aimed at exporting surpluses to the free West. Because we in South Africa are faced with this problem, it is necessary that we should be doubly careful here and guard carefully against introducing artificiality into our agriculture.

In his speech the hon. member for Newton Park indicated that he is opposed to the recommendations of the gradual removal of subsidies. Unfortunately, one of the factors which is responsible for artificiality in the agricultural industry is in fact the subsidy system. I am afraid that we shall have to look at all forms of subsidization because subsidies make it very difficult to determine the real power of the producer or of the industry. On the one hand it is just as difficult to give an opinion of the buying ability of the consumer or the consumer demand. Therefore we want to ask that the gradual elimination of subsidies also be used to remove artificiality from the agricultural industry in South Africa, because we will end up in a maze with this artificiality so that when we have to return to reality, the shock to the producer on the one hand and the consumer on the other will be all the greater. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bethlehem was quite correct when he said that there is a degree of disappointment at the fact that the commission did not find it possible after their exhaustive analysis of the situation to put forward more radical proposals for the changing of the marketing situation in South Africa. I think it is natural that there should be disappointment because before the commission sat to investigate the position there was a general belief on the part of both producers and consumers in South Africa that there was a great deal wrong with marketing in South Africa. From the point of view of the producer, who felt the pinch with increasing production costs and who saw the difference between the price received for his products and the price at which the same products were being sold to the consumer, it was naturally believed that there was something very wrong with the marketing system in South Africa. Indeed, there was a great deal of suspicion and criticism in respect of the control boards, the Department of Agriculture and all other organizations and people involved with marketing.

It is equally true that the consumer in South Africa, who is under tremendous pressure as a result of inflation and the erosion of the value of money, is also aware of the wide gap between the price the farmer received for his produce and the price the consumer had to pay over the counter for the same produce. The consumer was also of opinion that there was something very wrong with the process of marketing, the process of distribution and the retail process as far as agricultural produce was concerned. Naturally, since it was the marketing system that was under suspicion on the part of both the consumer and the producer, there was the expectation that the report of the commission would put forward proposals that would radically change the marketing system in South Africa. I want to emphasize that there is disappointment that such a change did not come about but that at the same time the criticism has been muted. In other words, the critics of this report have not found any glaring examples where the commission failed to carry out its responsibilities.

After having studied the commission’s report, having read all the criticism that is available and having generally looked at the situation, I believe that under the circumstances the commission has done a good job and that its recommendations will in fact lead to an improvement. However, I believe that what we should be doing in this debate is to ask ourselves whether the commission has gone far enough and whether its proposals will bring about, firstly, an improvement in the income of the producer; secondly, whether it will bring about an improvement in the efficiency of marketing and of distribution; and, thirdly, whether it will bring about a stabilization in the prices the consumer has to pay. I believe it is important that in this debate we should apply ourselves to looking at the recommendations and attempting to analyse to what extent the recommendations will meet the requirements that were set out for the commission at the outset. The commission gave attention to the relationship between the producer on the one side and the control boards and the National Marketing Council on the other side. The commission came to a number of conclusions. One of the most important conclusions is embodied in one of the recommendations made by the commission, namely that the National Marketing Council is to be considerably strengthened in respect of its status, its powers and the work it is going to do. I believe that this is one of the good and meaningful recommendations made by the commission. They have now created a marketing council which will have more status and more power, and which, we hope, will be more effective in controlling the marketing processes in South Africa. They have defined the task of the marketing council as being essentially economic in nature, and they have decided that there should be six full-time competent economists on the council. Obviously, by also deciding that the Minister will be the final arbiter or final decision-maker as far as prices and margins are concerned— based on consultation with the marketing council after receiving recommendations from the boards—they have also created a situation which can result in more stability, in decisions being taken sooner and in a more effective process of marketing.

I would like to deal with a few of the recommendations made by the council. One of the recommendations touches on a difference of opinion between the hon. member for Newton Park and the hon. member for King William’s Town. That is the recommendation which deals with the interests of the consumer, particularly as far as consumer subsidies are concerned. I believe that, in a country like South Africa, where a large percentage of the population live below the breadline and are finding it increasingly difficult to afford even the minimum essentials as far as foodstuffs are concerned, we must be very careful indeed before we do away with the subsidy in terms of basic necessities, such as butter, bread, mealie meal and so forth.

I believe that the hon. member for Newton Park is correct in this respect. These selected, basic and absolutely essential foodstuffs are vital for a large percentage of the population of South Africa in order to keep body and soul together. Remember that the hon. the Minister himself said at Gazankulu that thousands of people in South Africa were starving. Of course, he was correct in saying that. In respect of subsidies on those foodstuffs, it is an essential socio-economic service that the Government has to render to tens of thousands of people in South Africa living below the breadline, and it would be wicked if subsidies in respect of those foodstuffs were to be abolished.

Although the commission has recommended that consumer representation on the control board should be removed, I believe that it is a bad recommendation. The important point is this. All consumers are vitally affected by agriculture, by the purchase of the products of agriculture and by the distribution of the products of agriculture, as well as by the processing of the products of agriculture. It is all very well to say that consumers will have an opportunity—once every six months, or once a year—of consulting with the National Marketing Council or its chairman. However, that will be more by way of a post mortem of the results of increased prices than by an actual analysis of what can be done about things before increases occur. I believe that consumer representatives should sit in on the decision making processes, when decisions are taken in order to enable them at that stage to bring to attention their requirements or the requirements of the people that they represent.

I believe it is very important that this particular point should be carefully considered. I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to see to it that this is done, that the consumer in South Africa will not be left out of the process of decision making which affects the pricing, the processing and distribution of consumer products. The consumer should be a vital and integral part of the processing all along the line. It cannot be done by a casual meeting once every six months or once a year between the National Marketing Council and the Consumer Council. One of the other recommendations I think one should comment on, is in regard to the levies which are raised by control boards. I should like to underwrite the relevant recommendations in the report which say the following—

The most important recommendation of all is most probably the one dealing with the merging of the Dairy Board and the Milk Board. I believe that the most important recommendation of that commission relates to this field, and the hon. the Minister should react on that recommendation immediately.

Mr. Chairman, I think the chairman of this commission may pat himself and the members of his commission on the back for the report which they brought out, especially if it satisfies the members of the party sitting on the benches next to mine. It is an exceptional achievement to satisfy even this party, which is so critical of everything being done in this country. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member who has just resumed his seat for his fine, positive contribution in this regard.

I want to refer briefly to a few points which he criticized. Perhaps I can put matters in the correct perspective. As far as consumers’ representation is concerned, I think the hon. member for Bethal has already dealt with this. I should like to add that the meeting with the Co-ordinating Consumers’ Council which is envisaged, will not be a post-mortem, but a meeting which will take place at the initial stages, at the beginning of the year, before prices have been determined. In other words, the consumers will have a full say in the matter of determining prices, the flow of the product, etc., at the start of the season concerned.

A point in respect of which the hon. member, in my opinion, was somewhat wide off the mark relates to the fact that the commission recommended that control boards were to have as little as possible to do with the further processing of agricultural products. In other words, since the report states that the processing of agricultural products should be chiefly in the hands of the private sector, it is only right that as far as the processing of the product is concerned, consumers are to have very little say on control boards.

I should also like to express my gratitude and appreciation for the fact that I could serve on this commission. One is amazed at one’s ignorance when one participates in an in-depth inquiry, such as the one we made. One is also amazed at the scope of agriculture. I should like to agree with the hon. member for Bethlehem that agriculture is one of the most comprehensive industries in this country, and to me it was a privilege to have served on a commission of this kind. I should also like to express my appreciation to the Government for having afforded us the opportunity of making a short study of agricultural marketing abroad. Once again I want to agree with several other members that, although we learned a great deal during our visits abroad, we are also grateful for the fact that we may be agriculturalists under the provisions of our Marketing Act and under our Ministry of agriculture. I think that we are privileged in this.

One aspect of the commission’s report which will most probably elicit most discussion and most criticism, is the recommendations concerning the meat scheme. I should like to go into the recommendations in some detail. Hon. members will know that an investigation was conducted into the meat scheme, as mentioned in the commission’s report, from as far back as 1950-’51. Reading the reports as well as the recommendations contained in them, one sees that all of them wanted to move away from too much control. In other words, all the commissions, and some of the minority reports as well, recommended a freer marketing of meat in the country. The 1972 commission made a few recommendations, especially in respect of auction service abattoirs in the controlled area of Johannesburg and Pretoria, so as to make it possible that animals be sold by means of negotiation prior to such animals being slaughtered. Another recommendation was that private bodies be enabled to bring cattle for slaughter to their own abattoirs for their own account. The hon. the Minister immediately approved of these two very important recommendations, but for various reasons they were not implemented and the auction service abattoirs were never built. The point I want to make, is that the 1972 commission also felt very strongly about creating a freer marketing system for meat in the country. By means of this recommendation they tried to bring this about although, as I have just said, this was never carried into effect.

Our commission, together with the 1972 commission as well as many others, was of the opinion that there should be a change-over to a free system of marketing, at public service abattoirs as well. Our recommendations in this connection are briefly as follows: Firstly, we recommend the total abolition of the compulsory on-the-hook auctions—in other words there is to be no obligation that meat supplied, has to be auctioned—secondly, producers are to be allowed to slaughter livestock at the service abattoirs and sell the meat by means of negotiation; in the third place, however, commerce should also be allowed to bring livestock for slaughtering, livestock for which they have concluded negotiations with farmers in advance; the fourth point is not really a recommendation, but a statement that the commission foresees a day when slaughtering will take place in the production areas and carcasses will be graded in those areas and sold in the controlled areas by means of a catalogue.

For the record I should like to rectify something with regard to a report which appeared in the Natal Mercury and E.P. Herald—

I forgive these gentlemen for this statement, because the report may be somewhat difficult for them to read. I do feel, however, that the matter should be rectified. It creates a very poor impression if it is said that farmers will be allowed to slaughter on their farms and transport the carcasses to the controlled areas. With the development of marketing, and especially with the development in respect of the fattening of cattle, it can now be made possible for producer to enter into contracts with certain dealers in advance and to deliver over a period at an agreed price of course— that is to say, if the recommendations are accepted. After all, this is a modern approach to marketing and also creates confidence in an industry if one is able to do something of this kind.

Sir, my time is running out and I should still like to say something with regard to butcheries. Here our recommendations are revolutionary, but I think we need revolutionary action in this regard now. In past years, there was good reason for the limited powers of registration of the Meat Board. However, the commission is of the opinion that it is no longer in the interests of the meat industry for the Meat Board to have limited powers of registration henceforth, but that there should be a form of formal registration only. We have a Hygiene Act which lays down in any event how meat is to be marketed in a butchery, and we do not think it is in the interests of the industry that these powers be exercised any further and consequently we recommend that it be abolished altogether. I do not believe we have ever given supply and demand a full opportunity of coming into its own in this respect in the past. In addition we recommend that restrictions on butchery hours, which are very limited at present, be abolished. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, I should also like to express my thanks for the fact that the commission had the privilege of visiting overseas countries and of comparing our system and the systems there. It was a great privilege and the visits produced valuable information. I should just like to mention here that each of the groups drew up a separate short report on their findings. These reports could naturally not be included in the main report, and I just wondered whether the hon. the Minister could not consider making these short reports available to interested parties at a convenient time because they really contain very important information.

I should like to give the House a few of the impressions produced by the overseas visits, because I think they should be placed on the record. The first thing which I want to mention is that we found throughout the world that agricultural marketing must be co-ordinated and that this is supported by the various Governments. We found that in the European Economic Community in particular they go so far as to protect their producers against imports, for the specific purpose of guaranteeing a stable price and income for their producers. I think it is very important that countries which concentrate so much on their own economies should give such priority to agriculture. I just want to point out that the EEC is going to gain in importance in future. It began as an organization of nine member countries which broke down internal walls. Today it has developed to such an extent that apart from the nine member countries, there are another 47 associated countries. This shows us that the EEC is going to occupy a very important place in the marketing of agricultural products in the world in future. I think it will become the predominant power bloc as far as agriculture is concerned. I know it will be very difficult for us here in South Africa to become an associated member of the EEC, but I think that this is something which we should always bear in mind. We must make every attempt to be admitted to it. They are going to become a completely independent bloc which will need nothing from anyone else, because they are so large and because they will have such an immense coverage.

Another important impression which I received during the visit abroad was the important role which co-operatives play in organized marketing, the attention which is paid to them by the Government when it comes to price determinations, to negotiations concerning imports and exports and to all the other measures which are taken in connection with agriculture. Agricultural corporations also have a wide coverage in other countries. One finds in our own country that the co-operatives are very easily criticized. The matter was recently raised in the newspapers once again when co-operatives were accused inter alia of being octopus-like. We found that in other countries co-operatives play a role in many spheres which they have not yet even entered in our country. For example, as far as banking is concerned, co-operatives provide for their own financial requirements there. I think that co-operatives are very important and that this is the case throughout the world. We saw that in other countries co-operatives have succeeded in entering spheres which have not yet been entered in South Africa. As far as the marketing of perishable products is concerned, we saw, for example, that in the Netherlands, co-operatives market flowers successfully, and that co-operatives in Italy market vegetables in a very successful way to the advantage of their producers. We need not be afraid of giving our full support to co-operatives, because they are a very essential and a very necessary means for marketing agricultural products.

A third impression I received was how essential it is for us to obtain more coordination in connection with our exports. I think that we in South Africa still give too little attention as a rule to earning currency for our country by means of agriculture. Agricultural products are the only commodities which renew themselves. For this reason it is essential that there should be greater coordination in our exports. An inquiry has been conducted as to whether it is not perhaps possible for the control boards which already have export organizations to act in concert. It will not be easy to bring this about, but I think that this is a sphere which must be investigated. I think this is one of the tasks we can entrust to the new Marketing Council, to try and do more in connection with export and in connection with its co-ordination. It appeared, for example, that France has a collective sales drive known as Sopexa which does tremendously good work. It is a voluntary organization of which anyone may become a member, not only producers, but manufacturers as well. The organization has collective offices and accomplishes a great task.

I have mentioned the great asset which exports can be as far as the earning of foreign currency is concerned. This was proved to be the case in Israel in particular, where they have an organization known as Agrexco which goes so far as to tell the farmer what he should plant, something we have always fought shy of in South Africa, they find a market for the farmer’s product and they guarantee him a price for the product. I think that we have always been a little too careful, with the result that we have not gone far enough in helping the farmers in this way in order to promote exports. Another impression which I received is in connection with the marketing of products which have hitherto been free of control and the possibilities of creating marketing arrangements for these products as well. In the United States with its free economy they have what they call “marketing orders” which enable a group of farmers to get together and obtain legal powers to market their products collectively. Meetings of all interested parties are held and a scheme is drawn up. Once the scheme has been drawn up, it is a collective attempt and may be used by the farmers to co-ordinate their marketing. This works very well, and I think that provision should definitely be made in the new Marketing Act for uncontrolled products and especially perishable products to make use of this type of system. I just want to say that if we have schemes like this, we must remember that the best background for a scheme like this is still the agricultural co-operative, where the farmers come together voluntarily and decide to market their products collectively. I also want to express my thanks, just as other hon. members have done, towards the chairman for the way he led the commission. It was not an easy task. We worked for hours and hours at a stretch, and his patience was tried on many occasions. The work which was done by commission reminds me of what the chairman of the Belgian Farmers’ Association told us after we had been in conference with them for hours. I may just say in passing that it was not an easy conference, because they had a whole lot of cigars on the table and everyone smoked. After a while the room was so dark that one could not see anything. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet dealt with the meat position and the hon. member for Humansdorp with the vegetable position. In the nature of things of course, because I served with them on the commission, I agree with them.

When the time for my previous turn to speak expired I was dealing with the criticism expressed by various organizations in regard to the report. I was in the process of saying why it was not possible for us to amalgamate more control boards. I dealt with this in considerable detail. During the lunch adjournment I again read the criticism expressed by Die Landbou Weekblad, and they specifically mentioned why we could not amalgamate the Wool Board and the Mohair Board, and also why the Deciduous Fruit Board, the Dried Fruit Board and the Canned Fruit Board could not be amalgamated. At first glance, it seems very easy to amalgamate them. But take, for example, the Dried Fruit Board. The general impression is that it deals with ordinary fruit. However, that is not the case. It deals with raisins, sultanas, prunes and other produce grown along the Orange River, products more properly associated with the wine industry, and not at all with deciduous fruit as such. The result is that it is virtually impossible to amalgamate the two boards. If one takes the example of the Wool Board and the Mohair Board, they appear to be the two which may most logically be amalgamated. But the Mohair Board functions exceptionally well and has its head office in Port Elizabeth. The head office of the Wool Board, however, is in Pretoria. New buildings will therefore have to be erected. If the Mohair Board had to be incorporated with the Wool Board, it would have to receive representation on the Wool Board. We have already tried to keep these boards as small as possible and to limit them to a maximum of 11 members. Everyone is aware that a large body cannot function. So we left the door open, and said that in certain cases the Marketing Council could investigate the matter further and see whether they could not perhaps bring about an amalgamation. Merely to speak of amalgamation in the air simply does not work out. Die Landbouweekblad went on to say that the commission could have said more about the waste product story. In this respect I want to agree with them wholeheartedly, namely that it was entirely impossible for us to have investigated the waste product story, quite apart from the fact that it did not fall within our terms of reference either. However, I think the Wool Board has caused the matter to be investigated. It is imperative, and I think the hon. the Minister has the report in that regard. Something drastic will have to be done in regard to the waste product story, for the position prevailing there is scandalous.

The other point of criticism, the most poisonous criticism, came from the “Business Times” section of the Sunday Times of 23 May 1976. This was an article written by Mr. Toni Koenderman. He said—

I want to say at once that an investigation into the co-operative movement did not fall within the scope of the terms of reference of this commission. He went on to say—

Do you agree with him?

No, in fact I am now going to criticize him. He makes it clear that what he is objecting to is the producer majorities on control boards. Are the farmers that produced the wheat or raised their own sheep—and who have paid their levies—not entitled to be in the majority on the control board? Would the industrialists under the FCI or any industrial body allow producers to be in the majority or would they themselves retain the majority representation? Could we have been expected to have arranged the system differently? That hon. gentleman was making a distinct insinuation when he said—

I concede that to a certain extent he has a point there. There are many of those control board members who are directors of co-operatives. However, in this commission, we went out of our way to make it impossible for them to discriminate against private enterprise. We removed the determination of the final price from the control boards and placed it in the hands of the hon. the Minister. That was consequently why the Landbouweekblad was criticizing us.

Co-operatives are a disgrace.

Are they a disgrace? Well, then why do you not stand up and speak about that. I shall prefer to ignore that argument of course, because it comes from “big business”. We have also done away with restrictive registration, as the hon. member for Graaff Reinet mentioned here. Free enterprise may now take its course, except of course in a few cases, for example in the case of wheat millers, bakers, the distributors of milk and in certain cases the packers of dried fruit. These are all cases where we have retained it. Where we have retained it, however, the control board no longer has the final say. We have established an impartial body, with a person with a legal background as chairman. What more should we have done? As far as quotas are concerned, the control boards cannot favour the cooperatives either, for we have made the allocation of quotas subject to the approval of the hon. the Minister. What more should we have done? On this matter, however, the hon. gentleman has this to say—

What more should we have done? He went on to say—

How can he say a thing like this when we have in fact made major concessions to private enterprise? Is that fair? In regard to the producer majority, he went on to say—

I think the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet dealt with this very well. After all, we went out of our way in this regard, and I now want to ask the following question: What exactly must a consumer do on a control board? What must he do on the Wool Board? What must a woman representing consumers do on the Wool Board? What must such a person do on the Lucerne Board or the Maize Board? The price is no longer being determined there, and we have gone even further. After all, we have devised a far better plan than that. As the hon. member said, the Marketing Council, the body which recommends the prices, holds talks every year with the Co-ordinating Consumers Board. At that conference on agricultural prospects they can discuss the matter of prices. They have representation there and are able to state their case there. This is also the reply to the hon. member for Bryanston. But, Sir, this writer went further—

Sir, that is simply not true. We have placed this in the hands of the Minister. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for King William’s Town on two very responsible and well-considered speeches he has made today. I do not wish to give him the kiss of death, but I should like to tell him that those speeches would have been excellent as maiden speeches here in the NP benches.

Sir, I should like to devote myself today to a different aspect from those that have been discussed by hon. members up to now. Firstly, I should like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed listening to persons who had been involved with the Commission of Inquiry into the Marketing Act. They have described the position to us in a wonderful way today and I thank them for it. However, I wish to confine myself to the problems of the small farmers or, as they are often called, the owners of uneconomical units. I am very much aware of the general tendency in the world, and especially in America, where they say, “Get bigger, get better or get out.” I want to say that that tendency is perhaps catching on very strongly in South Africa. Sir, I do not for one moment wish to defend bad farming methods or incompetence in agriculture. On the contrary. I believe it is true that only the most competent farmers will survive, but that picture also has a reverse side, and it will not do us any harm to dwell on that for a few moments.

Before I proceed with my argument, I should like to pay tribute to our Minister and our Deputy Minister. I have found them tremendously sympathetic every time I have gone to them with a specific case of hardship. That applies especially in respect of the smaller farmers. I thank them for this, and it has given me the confidence to make a plea to them today to give attention to a big problem which I know is very important to them. In this regard I should also like to suggest a solution with due deference.

When we talk about the small farmer, the farmer with the so-called uneconomical unit, we should ask where we usually find these farmers. There is no standing rule, but we find them most often in those parts of the country with a low rainfall, with an irregular rainfall, and in remote places on river banks where transport is not available and the markets are far away, for those places do not offer good investment possibilities to the big investors of capital. Therefore, those farmers live in remote, drought-stricken parts of the country. Let me put it this way: You will not find them on those farms about which they say, “There the farming is done by the windmill and his neighbour. ’ ’ Perhaps there are people who will say that it is generally known that a very large percentage of our very capable officials and industrialists come from those areas where the small farmer with his uneconomical unit is to be found, so perhaps it would be wise for the other brother, too, rather to come and work in the Public Service or in industry. My immediate reply to that is a loud and clear “No”. There are various reasons for my saying that. In the limited time available to me I shall refer to a few of them. The first reason is that South Africa cannot do without them. When we consider that 80% of the agricultural products are produced by 10% of the farmers—the hon. the Minister must correct me if I am wrong …

Twenty per cent.

All right, let it be 20%. This being the case, we realize that there are a large number of farmers who are responsible for the other 20% of the agricultural produce. Without that 20% South Africa will not be able to cope. Without them we shall have a shortage of food. That is my first argument. My second argument is that those farmers are pioneers. If we had not had those farmers in the arid parts of Namaqualand, for example, i.e. in the hardeveld, we would not have had the mines there today. They have done pioneering work. There is another reason I should like to suggest. They did not only open up that part of the world; they are maintaining it still. They maintain the church and the schools there. Large parts of South Africa will fall into disuse if we do not have those small farmers to support and maintain them.

The most important reason is perhaps that South Africa would suffer an irreparable loss of character and human material if those people had to leave the country to come and live in the towns, for then they would become different people. Those young men and women who come from the rural areas and who suffered hardships there introduce a leavening agent into our national life and our cities. I always feel very proud when I think about the time when I made a remark about the excellent behaviour of the girls in one of our hostels, and the headmaster of the hostel told me: “You know, these are the girls who come from those parts where the small farmer comes from.” The hardships had made these girls examples to others.

I should like to leave it at that. I wish to hurry to get to the solution, because time may catch up with me before I come to that. The first solution always remains the consolidation of the worst cases—but then I wish to add that I am speaking about voluntary consolidation. I should like to pay tribute to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure for the manner in which they go out of their way, the manner in which they almost lean over backwards to render assistance in cases of consolidation. I appreciate it. I believe that every person in South Africa will have appreciation for it, appreciation for the manner in which the department goes out of its way in order to be of assistance. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister for the way in which they have time and again gone out of their way to be of assistance whenever I have come to them with problems of this nature.

However, that is not all I wish to speak about. Many people try to create the impression that the small farmer should not be assisted, because he will then be kept in the rural areas. As far as I am concerned, this is a wrong approach. I believe that we should assist those small farmers who are in the rural areas and who see their way clear to remaining there and to leading an independent life. The form of assistance to them I should like to advocate here today is not financial assistance, although people are often too much inclined to think about that only.

Let us analyse the big problem of the small farmer today. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to identify myself with the hon. member for Namaqualand and to congratulate the Wentzel Commission on their enlightening and important report. For practical reasons I am able to support all the recommendations—with one exception—which are included in the commission’s report. Unfortunately I do not have time to quote all the paragraphs concerned for the purposes of my argument. However, they are found in full on pages 79 and 80 of the report. It concerns the principle of statutory contributions from agricultural control board funds to the S.A. Agricultural Union. With respect, I should like to say that in my humble opinion it did not fall within the terms of reference of the commission to seek sources of revenue for the S.A. Agricultural Union. I should like to read one paragraph—

The commission heard evidence in favour of these arguments, and also against it. The commission then made this recommendation—

I disagree with the S.A. Agricultural Union’s contention that all farmers should share the costs of this organization because they benefit by its activities. I am definitely not denying the service which the S.A. Agricultural Union renders to agriculture in South Africa; in fact, I have a very high appreciation for it. However, I object to the principle of a compulsory statutory contribution. Everyone in this country enjoys the benefit of law and order, of progress and prosperity and of security and stability created by the rule of the NP. However, not all voters are members of the NP; in fact, the NP has many enemies and has to persuade people to join it by means of its policy and its actions. Even then they have a free choice whether to contribute towards its funds or not.

The S.A. Agricultural Union, which is a voluntary organization, ought to carry out its self-imposed task with the assistance of its registered members. It should persuade people to join it by means of its policy and its actions. Whatever the service rendered by the S.A. Agricultural Union to agriculture in South Africa, or to State departments, or to control boards, as is implied in the report—just as the NP Government serves the whole South Africa—there can be no question of a compulsory statutory contribution. I trust that the hon. the Minister will not accept this particular recommendation, because there are literally thousands of farmers, in all the branches of agriculture, who are not members of organized agriculture. Why should we anger them by accepting a recommendation of this nature?

I shall leave the report at that. I should like to refer to the importance of the maize industry in South Africa. While I am referring to this, I should also like to express my regret at the failure of the negotiations which took place with a view to a reconciliation between the S.A. Agricultural Union and the S.A. Maize Producers’ Institute. I know that the hon. the Minister exerted himself for a reconciliation of this kind for three years and I am sorry that it did not succeed. I believe that it would have been in the interests of the maize industry had a reconciliation like this been brought about. I also hope that the final possibilities for negotiation have not disappeared. I should also like to express my regret at the fact that, rightly or wrongly, Sampi has been identified as a political pressure group.

If one looks at the large contribution made by the maize industry to a variety of sectors within our national economy, it can be best illustrated by the following paragraph, which I am now going to read from Mielienuus of October 1975—

This is the importance of the maize industry and our future position with respect to food production in South Africa is connected with this. I now want to read from Food Industries of South Africa of February 1976, in which the following is said—

Therefore the world has every reason to be concerned about its food position, but South Africa must be doubly concerned about it, because hunger, much more than relations problems, may become the cause of violence in South Africa. The statistics and the projection I have mentioned give cause for concern even now. For this reason South Africa has to move quickly in order to ward off the danger, because this danger is even greater than any foreign threat which we have experienced until now. The statesman of the future will be the one who encourages and enables his people to produce sufficient food. In the future it will not be Russian weapons which will be the instrument of negotiation, but a daily portion of food for every hungry person. Therefore it is extremely important that a highly specialized and co-ordinated development programme, with a view to the production of food, should be brought into being even at this early stage between South Africa, the homelands and its neighbouring States, as a part of the economic power bloc for Southern Africa to which the hon. the Prime Minister has already referred. We can rightly tell our neighbours that South Africa can produce successfully under the most extreme climatic conditions, because we have the necessary technique and knowledge. We are prepared to share that knowledge with Africa in an attempt to make this mighty continent a better, happier dwelling-place of this for all.

In view of the extreme climatic conditions to which I have referred, I should like to say a few words as a result of the abundant rains of the past season, about the particular problems which arose in my constituency. During the 1973-’74 harvest the crops failed as a result of drought. However, this was followed by two good harvests and we succeeded in settling our debts to a large extent. However, we had not yet recovered financially when this year’s natural disaster once again struck a large part of my constituency. In one single magisterial district, namely Bothaville, where I live, the harvest losses of maize oil seeds and grain sorghum has been conservatively estimated at R18 million. This is apart from the immense damage as a result of soil erosion and soil exhaustion. It will take us another two or three years to settle the new debts. In practice it means that for four years, our farming operations have gained us nothing as far as personal income is concerned.

I should like to make the statement that many farmers in my constituency will not survive this, because the financial effect of the new debt is not only limited to the next two or three years in which we have to repay it, but we shall have to struggle with it for years to come, because machinery and implements are worn out after a period of about six years. These will have to be replaced with expensive capital if we want to continue to produce. In the course of a good number of years to come, many of our farmers will go out of business as a result of the disaster years which we experienced. This will not be because we are impractical or uneconomic farmers. No, some of our best and most efficient young farmers will fall in this group. It is no use telling me that I am being over-pessimistic. I know the industry and the people I am talking about. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister for his personal assurance that not one of these afflicted farmers will be bought out as a result of the agricultural debt which has piled up against him during the two disaster years. I ask this because every one of them has a task to fulfil in South Africa’s giant food production programme, now and in the future. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parys ended with a plea to the hon. the Minister that he and his department should at least have some sympathy towards the members of the farming community who have suffered two years’ loss in a row.

I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that the hon. member for Parys carries our wholehearted support in what he had to say.

The hon. member for Parys also spoke about the mealie industry, an industry which is important to all sectors of agriculture in this country. It is for that reason that I added a footnote to that section in the commission’s report which stressed that when either the hon. the Minister or the Cabinet committee I recommended decides on the price of maize, it has to decide on that price in conjunction with the prices of other commodities as well. The prices of other commodities are dependent on the price of maize. It is important that those prices should be announced to be considered and announced simultaneously. The hon. the Minister knows that this is not only my own personal viewpoint. He knows that he has had representations along these lines from the S.A. Agricultural Union as well. I believe the hon. the Minister has to give very serious consideration to the footnote I added to that particular recommendation of the commission, particularly because of the very points that were mentioned by the hon. member for Parys.

The hon. member for Parys started by querying one of the recommendations of the commission which was decided on unanimously. I am referring to the recommendations that control boards should be allowed to levy their members a certain amount based on the value of their products and that they should be allowed to hand that money over to the S.A. Agricultural Union to help it with its administrative costs. The hon. member for Parys is wrong with the construction he has placed on that recommendation. This is not a mandatory recommendation at all, but a recommendation that the hon. the Minister should empower the boards voluntarily to do so. I ask hon. members with tears in my eyes: If the producers of that particular commodity are happy and satisfied—because they have a majority on their control boards—to pay such a levy to be handed to the S.A. Agricultural Union, I cannot see the hon. member for Parys having any arguments in regard to this.

While talking about this, I should like to get something else off my mind. I believe that every farmer and every producer in this country today has a duty to belong to the S.A. Agricultural Union. He can do that through his local farmers’ association, through his provincial union and so through the S.A. Agricultural Union. My appeal to every single farm in this country is to get together behind organized agriculture, behind the one body which can speak on behalf of all agriculture in this country, and that is the S.A. Agricultural Union. For the first time it has been recommended that the S.A. Agricultural Union should be acknowledged statutorily in regard to the whole question of the marketing of agricultural products and the fixing of prices. This I believe is another reason why every farmer should now become a member of that organization. Sir, I repeat my appeal to every farmer to join his agricultural organization. Before I go any further, I should like to place on record my appreciation …

Are your motives absolutely honest?

Yes, absolutely honest.

†Mr. Chairman, with respect to the hon. member for Carletonville …

I doubt it.

Would the hon. member for Carletonville explain what he meant?

I shall make a speech just now to explain.

I think the hon. member should withdraw it because he had no reason for saying it.

I withdraw it. There are historical reasons for it, but I shall withdraw it.

Sir, I am glad that the hon. member hangs his head in shame … [Interjections.]… and that he is now leaving the Chamber. Sir, I was about to speak of the hon. member for Bethal, who was the chairman of this commission, and to place on record my appreciation of the way in which he handled the proceedings of that commission, of the work he personally put in and also for the way in which he conducted the proceedings. I must say, as the minority representative on that commission, that I appreciate the way in which he conducted affairs, particularly his patience although it must have been sorely tried on many occasions. There were times when discussions became a little heated but yet he never lost his temper. I also want to express my appreciation to my colleagues on that commission for the friendship that existing in that commission. Out of that has come this report, a report which I believe is going to be good for agriculture, on condition that the hon. the Minister accepts what the hon. member for Bethal said and in regard to which I want to support him. He says that this report has to be looked at as a whole.

*The Minister must please not peck at this report, single out a few items at random, reject this and accept that. He must please consider the report as an entity and apply all the recommendations in the report.

†I wish to say that although he knows that there are eight or 10 footnotes which have been added in my name, where I had a slight difference of opinion with the majority of the members of the commission, I want to urge the Minister that when he considers that report he can apply either of two alternatives which are placed before him in each of those instances. If we deal with the Marketing Council, for instance, where the majority of the members suggested that the Marketing Council should consist of six full-time members, I want to put it to him that I believe that agriculture requires the knowledge and the expertise which can be brought to the marketing of agricultural products through representatives of commerce and industry, of the consumers in whatever guise, whether processors, industrialists or even housewives. I believe that the place for that representation is not on the control board, as we have it today, but that it is on the National Marketing Council. That is why I made the recommendation which I made. I do not believe that it is necessary for all the members of the National Marketing Council to be there full-time. I believe that the six full-time members recommended can act as an executive, and that the part-time members can meet in general meetings and there give the benefit of their advice. I also believe that, while dealing with the marketing council, there is one other point where I cannot agree with the majority of the members, and that is on the question of the report which the marketing council should submit to the hon. the Minister. The position at the moment is that they should report every two years. This has been observed, unfortunately, more in the breach than in the observance. I find that the last report which was submitted by the National Marketing Council was in 1965 and covered the period from 1950 to 1964. I want to say this, that if this council had reported every two years and if the Minister and his predecessors had taken note of what the National Marketing Council had to say about agriculture, I do not believe that this commission would have been necessary. Let me refer him to RP 40 of 1965, to paragraph 51. Before dealing with that, let me say that I believe that the two most important things which have come out of this investigation are the suggestion that we should now do away with restrictive registration of commercial undertakings where it is outside of the agricultural sphere and the recommendations regarding changes to the meat scheme. Paragraph 51 reads—

Paragraph 125 reads—

That was in 1965, 10 years before this commission was appointed. I believe that for this reason, the National Marketing Council is closer to agriculture than anybody else, with all respect to the hon. the Minister and to the officials of his department. It is closer to these particular problems and they know what they are talking about. For that reason I believe it is important that they should be compelled to report to the hon. the Minister, to Parliament and to agriculture as a whole, at least every two years. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise only to give the hon. member the opportunity to continue with his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for his kindness, and while I am thanking him, may I say that I omitted in the thanks which I expressed earlier, to thank the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister for the assistance they gave to members of the commission and also the officials of both departments for the assistance which they rendered to members of the commission.

There is another aspect of the commission’s report which was mentioned by other members. That relates the question of consumer representation. Evidence before the commission was unanimous on the point that representation on the control boards was absolutely useless. It serves no purpose whatsoever and it is for that reason that the commission has suggested that such representation should be removed. Yet I believe that consumer participation in one form or another is necessary. If we are to have an effective marketing organization or scheme in this country, it must have the support of both the producer and the consumer, regardless whether the consumer is the distributor, the processor, the manufacturer or the housewife ultimately consuming the particular commodity. We need their support and I believe that they cannot be left out of the whole scheme of things. This is why I have said to the hon. the Minister that I hope he is not going to take bits and pieces out of the report, for although it is recommended that the consumer should lose his representation on the control board, this recommendation is subject to the proviso that the control board should lose the power to fix prices and that they lose the power to restrict the registration of persons who deal in their particular commodity. I want to add that consumer representation must be given on the National Marketing Council. It is imperative that there should be at least two consumer representatives on that council. I further believe that the National Marketing Council, as is also recommended in this report. The consumer participation in the conference of agricultural prospects is something which is absolutely essential. The final point that I believe must be looked into is that the final fixing of the price of the agricultural commodity must not be the sole responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. When I say that I do not mean the present hon. Minister personally. It must not be the sole responsibility of any one person to do that.

I believe that this should be a collective responsibility. I understand that it is at the moment a collective responsibility in that the Cabinet decides before the hon. the Minister announces the price. It should however be written into the Marketing Act that it should be done by a Cabinet committee of at least five members, two of whom should be the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, who should act as the chairman of that committee, and the Minister of Economic Affairs to represent the consumers. The other three members should be Ministers concerned with prices and the marketing of agricultural products. I believe it is imperative that one should draw these people into this matter as well. It is for that reason that I say that the hon. the Minister must look at all the recommendations.

Much has been said, and there seems to be a little confusion or at least disagreement here, about the question of the subsidization of prices. I have placed on record my attitude in the report, and I want to place it on record here, that I believe it is essential that there must be subsidization of the consumer prices of products. The social and economic circumstances of South Africa are such that a large mass of our people are under-privileged and fall within the lower-income group. If we all had high incomes, it would have been all right, but we do not all have high incomes. It is for this reason that I believe that basic food products, such as maize, wheat and milk, should be subsidized, even if it does result in increase in taxation. It is the higher income group people who are paying the taxation and they can afford to pay. However, I believe you have got to subsidize the lower income group of people. There has just been an increase in the price of milk. I believe that it is totally unjustified to increase the price of milk to the consumer. I do not believe that the producer has received enough, and the hon. the Minister is facing the problem with regard to milk today because he has not been prepared to accept the principle of subsidizing the price of milk to the consumer, most of whom are lower income group people. If the farmer does not receive enough for his milk, he is not going to produce enough milk for the needs of the country. We are going to face a milk famine in this country and we are about to face it; it is on the doorstep.

I have not got any money, nor does the Minister of Finance.

It is no good the hon. the Minister telling us he does not have the money or that the hon. Minister of Finance does not have the money. The money can be found, even if, as I have said, it means increasing taxes. It has got to be found to provide food at a reasonable price to our lower income group people.

What about the price of butter?

Butter is no longer a problem, because there is an alternative. While we are on this subject I should like to say to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture that he has done the lower income group of people a disservice in allowing an increase in the price of margarine. The price of margarine is almost the same as that of butter today. I do not believe that that can be justified either because there are large commercial undertakings which are making the profit out of that and not the primary producer. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to have another look at the milk question. He must look again at the producer and the consumer and look again at the middle man and see if he can really justify the tremendous gap of 11 cents between what the producer gets, when he gets 16½ cents, and what the consumer has to pay.

11 ½ cents.

The hon. the Minister says that it is 11½ cents. Can that be justified? That is one of the reasons which resulted in my supporting the recommendation of the majority of this commission, namely that the restrictive registration on distributors of milk should be lifted. Today it is in the hands of a few large concerns and it amounts almost to a monopoly. When the hon. the Minister in all good faith and honesty asks them for prices so that he can determine the gap between the producer’s price and the consumer’s price, he is at the mercy of these monopolies. They can produce any figure and the hon. the Minister cannot gainsay them. If he opens this to free enterprise on the other hand, I want to guarantee the hon. the Minister that that gap will narrow. Immediately there is competition, one will get a more efficient production, a more efficient distribution of milk and one will find that the gap between the producer’s price and the consumer’s price can be narrowed. That could almost be counted as a subsidy for the consumer, so that he will get a cheaper product anyway.

There was one other subject that I wanted to discuss with the hon. the Minister. Although my time is running out, I shall try to deal with this matter, the matter of veterinary services, very quickly. The veterinary services in Natal at the moment are in a parlous state. The Department of Agriculture does not have half the number of veterinary officers in Natal that it should have. The hon. the Minister nods his head; he therefore agrees with me. It is a problem which he has, and I do not have the solution to the problem. I want to identify the problem, however, and ask him to do something about it. When I refer to Natal, I refer only to the White parts of Natal. I believe that veterinary services in KwaZulu have completely broken down, even to the point where the movement of stock from one dipping tank to another is no longer registered. There is free movement of stock and the hon. the Minister knows what lies on the border of KwaZulu and the border of Natal. There is Mozambique, where there is foot and mouth disease and every other disease that one can think of. We also have the game reserves in Natal. The dangers which are posed by the breakdown of veterinary services in Natal and KwaZulu cannot be overstressed, the threat that is posed to the livestock of South Africa, KwaZulu and our game reserves. I do not know what the solution is. I do not have it. I heard one hon. member who spoke earlier in this debate talk about the small number of students qualifying from Onderstepoort and the other training colleges. That is one of the problems. However, I believe that we have sufficient veterinarians in this country, or we have a lot more than are available to the department. They are being drawn away through the money which is provided in the cities where they go and become cat and dog men, instead of being veterinarians. Can the hon. the Minister not do something to attract those people back to the department where they can provide a service to the people of South Africa, not only to the agricultural sector, but to the consumers as well. I plead with the hon. the Minister to please find a solution to this problem.

Mr. Chairman, before reacting to what was said by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, I first want to read out the following passage of the commission’s recommendations concerning the donation of funds to organized agriculture—i.e. to the South African Agricultural Union—

When this commission commences its task, it faced serious issues. Certain evidence criticising the system of control, evidence submitted to the commission, had to be answered. To be able to do this, the commission had to follow the path of its conscience, and any member of this commission can defend every recommendation in this report with a clear conscience. These are the norms by which this commission was guided. The commission realized in advance that some of the recommendations it would make, would bring fire and brimstone down upon it. However, it was the unequivocal standpoint of the commission that it would not allow itself to be led in its decision-making by pressure exercised upon it from any quarters. It decided that in its decision-making, in the interests of the agricultural industry, it would allow itself to be led by its conscience alone and this is what the commission did. I am speaking as a farmer when I say that in the interests of the farmer and agriculture in South Africa there should be one organization and its affiliates as the recognized mouthpiece of the farmer in South Africa, and from an historical and traditional point of view, this is the South African Agricultural Union. If abortions occur in the process, it is not for this Government to deal with those abortions. It is for the bodies within organized agriculture to get their house in order. Today I am not choosing sides between the S.A. Agricultural Union and splinter organizations. However, we cannot expect this hon. Minister and the Government to recognize every Dick, Tom and Harry or every splinter party of the farmers. We can only recognize the S.A. Agricultural Union. It is for organized agriculture, in the broad sense, to get its own house into order. It is not for the commission or for the hon. the Minister to act as referee and to decide who will be recognized and who not. Consequently I stand by the recommendations of the commission. We recognize the S.A. Agricultural Union as the recognized body which speaks on behalf of the farmers in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member agree that I definitely did not refer here to splinter parties which were to be recognized as such, and where does the hon. member read anything in the report which is indicative of “donations” when the words are “statutory collection”. Furthermore, where is there any reference to “voluntary” donations?

I do not want to join issue with the hon. member for Parys on this matter. To begin with I said—

I said this to begin with and I stand by this.

You said “donation”.

If I did perhaps use other words subsequently the fact remains that I did state the matter clearly initially, and I still subscribe to the point of view that funds may be collected statutorily for the partial financing of the expenses of the S.A. Agricultural Union. And then I want to repeat: If abortions did occur in the process, it is not for the commission to return those abortions to the womb of organized agriculture. It is for organized agriculture itself to set the matter in order.

In consequence of our investigation, as well as our investigation abroad, I want to say that there is one matter which is as clear as a pikestaff, and that is that the system of control as it exists and has developed in South Africa, is a very good system of control. Indeed, it is one of the best in the Western world. Therefore, in respect of the development of control in South Africa, I as a soya bean producer, want to avail myself of this opportunity today, to extend, on behalf of the soya bean producers, our sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture for the establishment of a one-channel pool scheme for the marketing of soya beans. Through the establishment of a one-channel pool system for the marketing of soya beans, a new day has dawned for the soya bean producers in South Africa. A marketing system has now been created for us which will enable us to negotiate better prices for our products and to ensure the future of this important source of protein for South Africa, in view of the fact that it will be needed more and more in future.

Furthermore, I want to say that the general impression exists that agricultural control boards are established solely for the benefit of the producer. This is a wrong impression. In South Africa we believe in a free, capitalist system, and allow the free market mechanism of supply and demand to determine prices throughout the entire economic sphere. But in the case of agriculture, the position is that there is a radical statutory interference in this mechanism and that we employ control boards and the Marketing Act for stabilizing these prices. These actions of control boards are aimed at bringing stability to the industry. It is aimed not only at negotiating a better price for the producer, but also at narrowing the gap between producers’ prices and consumer prices. One of the basic points of departure of the Marketing Act and of the entire system of control is to benefit not only the producer, but also the consumer in equal measure and afford the consumer the guarantee that there will always be sufficient food available in South Africa at a reasonable price.

The critics of the Marketing Act and the control boards overlook this aspect for the most part. The advantages to the consumer are not emphasized and not pointed out.

The hon. member for Bryanston made mention of the fact that consumer representation on the control boards was to be abolished and replaced by giving the Co-ordinating Consumers’ Council a seat at the annual conference held on agricultural prospects. I want to point out in passing that producers are not the only people who are represented on the control boards. There are also industrialists and representatives of commerce, and all those people are consumers in their own right. Moreover, the voice of the consumer is also heard and the interests of the consumer are looked after at the level of the National Marketing Council. The six non-farming members of the Marketing Council are in fact no more than consumers of agricultural products. The particular interests of the consumer are being looked after at a very high level and with competency. I should like to ask the hon. member for Bryanston, who objected to the removal of the existing representation of consumers on the control boards, who will represent consumers’ interests more effectively: a woman, an ordinary housewife who has been nominated—I do not want to say that there are no competent women—or professional people like economists at the level of the National Marketing Council, people who are in a position to judge and who may be able to point out very competently the consequences which certain price adjustments will have on the consumer? The commission is of the opinion that the consumers’ interests are served much more effectively by professionally schooled people at the level of the National Marketing Council than by arbitrary housewives in individual control boards. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, most of the speakers in the agricultural debate up to now have been members of the Wentzel Commission. Three years ago the Minister of Agriculture appointed this commission to investigate, bring out a report and make recommendations on the functioning of the Marketing Act.

This commission set about its task with enthusiasm and in all earnest and, in my opinion, tabled a very fine report. Sir, you yourself heard today how they reported on their findings. I have great appreciation for the fact that the commission, which consisted of members from both sides of the House, went to so much trouble and made so many personal sacrifices to assemble and process a vast amount of evidence, to make a study of marketing in other countries and after much consultation and consideration bring out a report which, above all, was also unanimous. It is clear to me that the chairman, and his commissioners succeeded in this report, as was also very clearly apparent today, in elevating agriculture above party politics and by so doing making of this report a piece of work from which it will still be possible to derive a great deal of good for agriculture. The searchlight has been thoroughly focused on our marketing system, and it was also tested against other systems. Arising out of that quite a number of recommendations were made. Today hon. members heard here what those recommendations were. I also read in the report, even though it is between the lines, that there is not really very much wrong with our well tried marketing system. This did not come as a surprise to me because I know from my own experience that there is a particular interest in our marketing system in overseas countries. If one pages through the Hansards of previous years, one notes that the Marketing Act has frequently been called the Magna Carta of the farmer. The report which is being discussed in this House today, once again emphasizes this truth. I agree, in common with Oom Gerhard Bekker that this is in fact the case.

A discussion of the Agriculture Vote revolves primarily around bread, bread in the wider meaning of the word. We are living in a blessed country—a country of sunshine and a country flowing with milk and honey. We have an abundance of that. Starvation and a lack of bread are completely unknown to us. Since the day of the great judgment, i.e. that in the sweat of thy face shall thou eat bread, was passed on mankind, its supplication has been “Father, give us this day our daily bread.” In South Africa these words from the great prayer are quite frequently misapplied; they are quite frequently misinterpreted, and become a mere prolixity. The seriousness of this truth passes us by. In these times in which we are living we have reason to be grateful that we are living in South Africa. I want to state this candidly to the PRP. In South Africa there are not very many people who are famished. Indeed, if there are people who are famished, there are in fact organizations, there is a system, there is machinery for providing those people with food.

The world population is increasing at such a rate that, if Malthus had been living today, he would definitely have grabbed at his pen in great haste to rewrite his famous essay, with which he so shocked the world in 1798, with far more incandescent adjectives. To the world the physical availability of bread—and I am once again using the word in the broader sense—has exceeded the safety limit. For 800 million people on earth, there is no longer enough daily bread. The population increase is taking place at the bewildering rate of two per second. That is during the period of ten minutes in which I am making a short speech here, there will be 1 200 extra mouths asking for food. The world’s reserves of bread has already been so low that there was only enough for 28 days. This is truly a terrifying idea. Only approximately 5% of the world food production—and now you should listen very carefully—is being channelled by the producer countries, in excess of their own consumption, into the trade flow as a surplus. This fact must be very thoroughly appreciated, particularly by those who so readily seize upon the argument of importing of food as an alternative to self-provision at a higher cost. Five per cent of the total world food production, in volume, is an enormous quantity, but seen against the background of the fact that we have only, in terms of our Joseph’s policy, kept back approximately 10% of our maize supplies in expectation of the new crop, and that we regard an over-production of 10% in the fresh milk industry as normal for our consumer requirements, then 5% of the food production as a supply in the trade is a dangerously low and risky source to be relied upon in times of shortages.

Against this background I think our concern in regard to sustained production at a sustained growth rate is fully justified. Against this same background our view of a total involvement of the entire population in an ensured supply of food is definitely a relevant one. I am speaking of total involvement. With that I mean in particular those who comprise the links in the entire chain of food production. However, I want to take it even further and allege that the consumer himself is an important, and is becoming an increasingly more important, link in the chain, because it is he, who, after all, has to pay for everything.

Modern farming is an economic industry in which normal business principles apply and in which the entrepreneur invests, with gain as his point of departure. With this point of departure the farmer shares the view of the entrepreneur who conveys, processes, packs, stores, and finances food, and handles it in the wholesale sphere and distributes it in the retail sphere. From the farmer to the retail distributor each individual renders a service for which the consumer creates the market and for which the consumer is prepared to pay. As a general statement we have to accept that the more luxurious the taste of the consumer, the longer the chain, and the more expensive the product. I want to present a fine little example here.

If you purchase milk from the milk farmer you will pay 14 cents per litre for it. If the milk is delivered to your home in a returnable container, you will pay 28 cents per litre for it. If you buy milk in a plastic container at the café, you will pay 32 cents per litre for it. If the chain becomes even longer and you were to drink the milk at the café in a glass, you would have to pay 48 cents per litre for it. If, in addition, you wanted a glass of hot milk, you would have to pay 54 cents per litre for it in the café. We must therefore realize that the longer the chain becomes the more we shall have to pay; the more luxurious our taste, the more we shall have to pay for it. Besides the production costs of the primary producer, the consumer undoubtedly plays a decisive role in the supply and the price of food. His demands in regard to freshness, appearance, taste, packaging, delivery, serving and hygiene are all price-determining factors. But surely everyone realizes that the fewer the links in the chain between the farmer and the consumer, the cheaper the product. The farmers in South Africa have, by means of co-operative action, shortened the chain considerably. There is no doubt about this; there is a great deal of evidence for this. In other countries, considerable success has been achieved in respect of food by the consumers by shortening the length of the chain by means of co-operative consumer action. In South Africa, however, this action meets with little support.

Order! The time of the hon. the Deputy Minister has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I should like you to afford the hon. the Deputy Minister an opportunity of completing his speech.

I thank the hon. member for his gesture. A certain measure of antipathy is even being built up against the agricultural co-operatives. I am afraid that the time has arrived when an emphatic warning has to be issued to the effect that the consumer, in so far as he participates in the destructive criticism of the cooperatives, must realize that he is in that way helping to lengthen the food supply chain and is in that way going to have to pay more for his food if the co-operatives were to be hurt or were to disappear. This matter is of real importance these days, and I am therefore pleased that I have been afforded this opportunity of issuing this warning in good time. In these times in which we are living, in which inflation and the attendant production cost increases and price increases of food are inevitable, a greater involvement of the entire population is essential. It is clear that everyone should do everything in his power not only to curb price increases, but to seek and to apply price saving measures.

I should like to mention a few possibilities in this regard. I have already mentioned the shortening of the chain. A second possibility is judicious food purchases by the housewife. She should do this on a basis of food value, and this ought to be the consideration to which priority is given by the woman purchasing foodstuffs. For example, it is alleged that cool drink is the drink of the worker and of the poor man. However, I doubt this very strongly. I think it is merely a cliché. This year our people are going to spend R198 million on it, and in comparison cool drinks, on a basis of food value, are probably three to five times more expensive than milk. Speaking of drinking, I just want to say that the present consumption of alcoholic liquor in this country is in the region of R1 132 million per annum. I accept the allegation that it is the poor man who is hardest hit by increases in food prices, and that it is he who can least afford these, but alcoholic liquor to the value of R1 milliard represents an enormous quantity of liquor. If only those people who, according to the Opposition, are able to afford higher milk, butter and bread prices, were to drink this, then truly the wealthy people in our country are all living on spirits. Tonight I want to allege that liquor is food and that an average liquor consumption per capita, i.e. of man, woman and child—whether, poor, Black, White or Coloured—of R50 per annum is grossly injudicious spending. In terms of bread it means that each person could afford one wholewheat loaf per day. What do we spend on bread? We spend only R168 million on the standard bread—white, brown and wholewheat. What we spend on our tobacco consumption is twice as much, i.e. R399 million. For the money which the packet of 50 cigarettes in my pocket costs me …

Lexington!

… I can buy four loaves of bread and still have a cent left over.

Why do you waste your money like that?

I agree. And then there are people in this House who complain about the price of bread in the Republic; and not only do they complain about the price of bread, they do not say a single word about the price of cool drinks, about tobacco or alcoholic beverages. They do not say that the prices of those articles are too high. Even our spending on bread is as injudicious. For example, 68% of the bread we eat is white bread, as against 31% in respect of brown and wholewheat bread put together. [Interjections.] And then I am not even talking about “French loaves” which the hon. member for Houghton certainly has on her table occasionally, and which cost twice as much as brown bread. The buns which are so tasty and which we eat so frequently costs three to four times as much as an ordinary brown loaf. It is really deplorable if a man with a glass of whisky costing 38 cents per tot in his hand argues with me about the high price of bread in South Africa. If he takes soda in his whisky, he can exchange that tot for more than three white loaves or more than a litre of milk. One can exchange a loaf of brown bread for two apples. For the price of a mango—which I myself have bought in Houghton or in Sea Point—one can buy three loaves of bread. One can exchange one kg of beef, as one buys it in the supermarkets, for ten loaves of bread. Surely, I do not think the Opposition and the news media can be serious when they carry on in this way about the price of bread and milk in particular.

There was an interesting development as far as the Sunday newspapers are concerned. Previously one could buy a loaf of bread for a sixpence, and a newspaper in which to wrap the bread for tuppence. Apart from the hygienic aspects, one simply cannot afford it any longer today, for with the price of one Sunday newspaper one is almost able to buy two loaves of bread. A person who buys a newspaper every day, Sundays included, spends 85 cents a week—the price of 6½ loaves of bread. A man cannot live on bread alone, but without bread the sods are soon raining on your coffin.

In the times in which we are living, in which food throughout the world is becoming expensive and scarce, the aspect of the wasting of food most certainly deserves the attention of us all. What gives rise to concern on my part is the wasting of food in the consumers’ hands. Hon. members can convince themselves of this by simply taking note of what is happening around them. For example, observe how much of the food which is served up on a plate for one in a restaurant, is sent back to the kitchen. At receptions, clubs, hospitals and in the hon. members’ own homes we find the same thing happening. Unconsumed food is thrown into the garbage bin. This type of wastage, together with the excessive use of foodstuffs, is costing South Africa vast amounts of money. To illustrate this, bread serves as a very good example, perhaps for the very reason that bread, as the result of its low price, is given the least consideration, and is treated with the least respect. Suppose all the bread which become stale, which is tasted and then not used again, plus the crusts … [Interjections.] Yes, we use a little of it in bread pudding, but we do not eat bread pudding every day. If all the wastage represents only the crusts on the two sides of a loaf of bread, it is already bad enough, but then we already have to add more than that, for we must consider that the cat and the dog must also have something to eat. This is a wastage and not something for which we should like to see a subsidy being paid, or for which we are willing to pay taxes. Just consider our dog population. Recently I saw a report in which one of the suburbs of Cape Town complained that there were approximately 40 000 stray dogs. How many more there are that are not strays I do not know, but the point is that if one takes these two crusts of a bread as representing a bread which is wasted, then it means that if one is able to obtain 20 slices from a loaf of bread and two crusts are thrown away, then what is being wasted is 10%, and 10% of the subsidy which is included at present in the Estimates, means that R9 million is simply being thrown into the garbage bin. I think it is time we give serious thought to these things, for they cry to high heaven. In these times in which public funds are so vitally necessary in many spheres, a great deal can be achieved with R9 million. We heard yesterday that we would be able to send 3 000 students to university on it, or could afford 3 000 farm labourers houses, on it, and do so every year. Sir, you are also aware that if we had to increase the price of the cheapest loaf of bread in the world, i.e. the one in South Africa, by one cent, then the State would be spending R15 million on a subsidy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister and I would ask, in reference to it and perhaps in defence of the tobacco farmers and the wine farmers in this country, that he looks with a little sympathy on the failings and the foibles of mankind, perhaps one could quote to him the Biblical text that man does not live by bread alone.

I want to say a word on behalf of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. We believe that pets do play a part in the life of mankind and I do not believe, therefore, that they should be denied a little bread. I agree with him entirely, of course, that there is far too much wastage of food, of bread, and it is really very painful indeed to think that people who are throwing away bread, are throwing money and good food down the drain. The hon. the Deputy Minister in the earlier part of his speech referred to the absolute necessity for a healthy agriculture for the production of foodstuffs in the world today. There, of course, we have every sympathy and agree with him. He also spoke about shortening the marketing chain, and I think that this is very important indeed. My hon. colleague, the hon. member for Bryanston, has expressed the views of the members in these benches in regard to the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry into the Marketing Act. He has made particular reference—and this is what I want to talk about—to the recommendation that the Dairy Board and the Milk Board be combined into one board, covering the whole operation of the dairy industry. I think it is necessary for the hon. the Minister to do something about this as soon as possible. I think he has to do something about implementing this recommendation as a matter of extreme urgency. I suggested it last year, and I think many other people in this House have been suggesting it for some time, that it is ridiculous that we should have two boards, and I think it is now up to the hon. the Minister to take steps, which I believe could in fact have been taken a long time ago. Perhaps, if he had combined the two boards earlier, the dairy industry would not have found itself in the difficulty which faces it at present and the housewife would not be forced to pay the disgracefully high price for milk which she is being forced to pay today. To my mind it is an absolute disgrace that we in South Africa have to pay the price that we do for milk, one of the highest prices in the world for this very basic commodity. It is imperative for the good health of all in South Africa that milk does not become so expensive that people, and particularly the poorer section of the community, are deprived of it or are unable to buy sufficient milk to maintain the health of their children and themselves.

I do not believe that the hon. the Minister has paid adequate attention to conditions in the dairy industry, particularly in so far as the marketing of milk is concerned. Increases in the price of feeds and transport costs have forced farmers to ask for a higher price, which is something which I believe they are entitled to. There is no great profit in dairy farming today even for the most efficient and the most competent farmer. The terrible indictment of the marketing operation is that the farmer, for the most part, is getting less than half of the price which the consumer pays over the counter. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned details of this. The average farmer is getting 14 cents per litre, and yet one has to pay 32 cents over the counter for a litre of milk.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to give very serious attention to a matter that I raised last year. I believe that there would be great possibilities for more efficient marketing if a greater percentage of the total quantity of milk sales was uht, or ultra-high temperature treatment or long-life milk. The pattern in many other countries of the world is that there is a greater consumption of long-life milk in relation to fresh milk. I understand that in some cases it is approaching 40%. There are of course many advantages and many disadvantages, but as far as South Africa is concerned, the advantages, to my mind, far outweigh the disadvantages. Firstly, it could well be the answer to the problem of seasonal milk shortages. The surplus fresh milk in summer at present is largely used for the production of powdered milk. I believe that a lot of this milk could be processed as uht milk, which could then be stored and used in times of shortages. It must be remembered that uht milk has the full nutritional value of fresh milk and is in no way inferior, although it has a slightly different taste, whereas there is a considerable resistance to the use of powdered milk.

I was interested to read a report in one of the Sunday papers last week which provided interesting statistics. In the summer of 1974 more than 72 000 million litres of surplus fresh milk were used for the production of powdered milk, cheese and ice-cream. Yet there were shortages over most of the Transvaal that winter. The annual production of uht long-life milk is just over 30 million litres, and when one equates that figure with a surplus production of 72 000 million litres, it is very little indeed. I appreciate that there are problems. The storage of large quantities of milk will be difficult because of the enormous storage area that would be required. This will probably present a very difficult problem to some of our urban dairy distribution centres. I do, however, believe that this difficulty could be overcome and I will come to that a little later in my speech.

The second advantage of uht milk is that it does not require refrigeration. This has obvious advantages to vast numbers of the poorer section of our population who do not have facilities to keep milk cold, so much so, that if long-life milk was available at a reasonable price, and I stress “reasonable price”, the demand for milk among the poorer sections of the community would actually increase. The third major advantage depends on the hon. the Minister and how far he is prepared to go to encourage the production of uht milk, because it concerns decentralization of the production facilities. At present much of our milk for bottling purposes is produced fairly close to urban areas where the majority of the consumers are. Land in these areas tends to be more expensive and is not necessarily ideal for the cheap production of forage and is not necessarily ideal grazing land. Feeding is that much more expensive because feed has to be purchased and transported from other areas. Farmers’ costs are higher. The difficulties of producing milk for major markets are obvious, although milk can be produced at a lower cost far away from those major markets. The hon. the Minister has on several occasions in the past refused to consider subsidizing milk.

I am in favour of a subsidy.

You are in favour of a subsidy, but you do not have the money or the facilities. The hon. the Minister has explained his difficulties and we understand his difficulties. My suggestion to the hon. the Minister is that he should consider ways and means of assisting with the capital cost, in the setting up of decentralized uht production units with adequate storage facilities. He should encourage a change in our costly milk distribution system, which at the moment is not a very efficient distribution system. By encouraging the production of uht milk at a reasonable price, he could do this. At present uht milk is far too expensive, and the price is not controlled. The milk is also very difficult to obtain. I have tried to get some in Cape Town. I walked down a street and tried at every café. Most of them have never heard of it, and I did eventually find it at one of the major supermarkets where it was selling at 35 cents a litre. It would seem that one can purchase uht milk at anything from 34 cents to 39 cents a litre, depending on the whim of the particular shopkeeper.

I believe that if properly handled, it should be possible to produce uht far more economically, particularly if the hon. the Minister, although he is not prepared to subsidize milk because that would cost too much, were prepared to subsidize or otherwise assist with the setting up of these decentralized production units for uht. This would be an obvious advantage to dairy farmers and to the consumer as well. I think we could end up with a totally new milk scene. I would like to commend this idea to the hon. the Minister for investigation by his department. I do believe that it has got very great possibilities. It is only by taking a very major initiative that the dairy industry is going to be restored to a healthy situation. At present dairy farmers are unhappy and milk production is dropping. The consumer is even more unhappy at the terrible price he has got to pay. I believe that the hon. the Minister has to act very speedily to try and set matters right.

All in all there is a very heavy responsibility on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister at the moment. The speedy implementation of the recommendations of the Wentzel commission might just have an effect on the unbelievably high prices of food. Incidentally, I was grateful to hear the attitude expressed by the chairman of the commission, the hon. member for Bethal, with regard to consumer orientated representation. I think this is a step forward and a step in the right direction and I would commend to the hon. the Minister his suggestion that certain members of the National Marketing Council should be consumer orientated or at least independent. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove spoke about milk. Unfortunately I cannot continue and speak about honey. This afternoon I have to speak about something which is perhaps less pleasant. Years ago an English economist said: “In most countries and at most times the farmer could at least count the poets on his side”. We in South Africa have been fortunate in that agriculture has not only had the poets and writers, but also the Government on its side for many years. It is a good thing to have the poets and writers on your side, but it is also good to have the Government on your side. I am sure that we still have the Government on our side, but I am not so sure whether we still have the poets and writers on our side.

Over the years the State has introduced a system of regulation and control of agriculture by means of legislation and regulations, by means of which agriculture was not enslaved to the State, but was able to develop into a valuable partner in the national economy. It now seems to me as if it has become the popular practice today to criticize and to level accusations at or cast suspicion on agriculture and its organizations. Here I should like to agree with the hon. member for King William’s Town who spoke this afternoon about the unjustified criticism which is being levelled at agriculture and its organizations. One asks oneself whether those who are trying to get at agriculture, think that in this way they are also able to get in a blow at its partner, the Government. On this matter, however, everyone has to judge for himself. There are the uncalled for, unfair articles in the Press, such as those to which the hon. member for King William’s Town referred, but there is also far more. It creates a feeling of dissatisfaction with, and even antagonism on the part of agriculture against those sectors from among which these attacks come. In these times in which we are living, we must not attack one another. We must not make war upon one another; we must co-operate. But then there must not be uncalled for and unnecessary attacks on agriculture and agricultural organizations. As we have already heard today, the State has been taking action for a very long time to apply measures and regulations in the interests of agriculture, but also in the interests of the country, and in future control will still have to be exercised by the State in the interests of national welfare. Without a healthy agricultural industry the Republic of South Africa is doomed. I do not know of any country in the world where agriculture can exist without a certain degree of intervention on the part of the State in the form of control.

One becomes annoyed if people who know nothing about agriculture, express opinions about agriculture which are quite unfair. Recently, during the last week in April, when the hon. the Minister of Agriculture introduced legislation to regulate the purchase of grapes, he was accused by the hon. member for Yeoville of furthering State intervention in the wine industry. The NP policy is not a policy of socialism. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs have said this on several occasions. They have themselves spoken out against socialism. We believe in free competition. I am sure that all of us in this House believe in it. However, we believe in free competition to the benefit of the country. However, what is to the benefit of the country? A well organized agricultural industry, which gives the farmers in the industry financial stability, so that supplies may be made readily available to the consumer at reasonable prices, is to the benefit of the country. For the industries which use agricultural products as raw materials, too, it is important that there should be a stable agricultural industry. We believe in free competition, and for this reason we still have 80 000 farmers in the country.

However, free competition can also lead to problem situations. Americans discovered this as long ago as the last century when it was realized that those who should actually have been competing with one another, began to become too friendly with one another. As long ago as 1890 the Americans had to pass the Sherman Anti-Trust Act so that they could have countermeasures against monopolistic conditions.

This brings me to the question: What is behind these attacks on organized agricultural co-operatives and control boards? I ask myself whether the people who launch those attacks could be people who advocate free competition so that they can build agricultural empires by means of vertical integration and the large-scale application of capital in an industry whose Achilles heel is in fact capital provision and capital formation.

I can mention many examples. One example is the millers industry. There is also the meat industry and the wine industry. Let us take the wine industry as an example. In the 19th century there was a great deal of instability in this industry. Over-production was rife. There were petitions to file Government. In 1904 there was a commission of inquiry. In 1909 nine co-operatives were established. Today six of them still exist. Even the establishment of co-operatives, which took place with the encouragement of the State, could not succeed in eliminating the problems of the industry. It therefore remained an unstable industry until the KWV was established as an umbrella organization in 1918.

What was the purpose of this organization? Its purpose was to control over-production on the domestic market and to draw off surpluses by requiring members to deliver their surplus supplies to the KWV. In 1924 control on this basis by way of legislation was established in the industry. Today the KWV is not a control board like the other 22 control boards on which this commission reported. It is a control board in its own right by way of legislation. The marketing of wine has since the earliest times been left in the hands of free trade so that the product could be marketed on a competitive basis. We have great appreciation for what free trade did, but what, however, happened in the trade? Today one company handles 70% of the industry’s good wine and another purchaser handles 80% of the industry’s distilling wine. Seventy co-operatives produce 80% of the total wine harvest, but they market only 1,84% themselves directly to the consumer. The question may now be asked whether these two powerful organizations, which control 70% or 80% of the industry, are satisfied with conditions as they are today. The answer is that they are not. The two of them together are ten times as strong as the KWV, but they are not satisfied. They want to be even more powerful. They want to control the production sphere. They are buying farms and they are buying grapes and making wine themselves. They want to achieve a system of vertical integration by means of which they can bring the entire industry under their control.

Therefore I say that although free competition is a good thing, problems can arise from it. However, it seems strange to me that no criticism is levelled in the Press at these large monopolistic organizations. The cooperatives, who have travelled a long, hard road, are being attacked today. They are being accused and the Government is being accused. While the Government is bringing about regulation and control, it is accused of intervening in a private industry and acting in a socialistic manner. Sir, it is in the interests of the country that agriculture should be kept on a sound basis so that the nation can be fed, and this is also being done for the sake of the State Treasury. The wine industry produces R90 million every year in the form of excise duties, and agriculture is an important earner of foreign currency. However, this can only remain so if there is proper control and regulation, so that agriculture does not end up in the hands of the big money moguls who can enter and leave at will and over which one has no control. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Malmesbury must forgive me if I do not react to his sound arguments. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to quite a different matter. By means of the stock withdrawal scheme which was introduced by this department some years ago, we achieved a marvellous recovery of our natural pastures in those parts and on those farms to which the system was made applicable. Along with this fine recovery which resulted from the stock withdrawal scheme, we had abundant rains during the past three seasons, and these have given us the most marvellous pastures imaginable where there used to be very sparse vegetation only. These are grasslands in which one may take real delight. But these also brought along dangers because, this lush vegetation, is a source of danger, the danger of veld fires, which, in my part of the world and throughout the country, had assumed large proportions at the end of 1974 and even larger proportions at the end of 1975. For instance, we find a fire breaking out on a certain day. The next day the farmer reports that, in spite of all the attempts made by him, 23 000 ha were totally destroyed by fire. A week later we find another fire breaking out. The farmers again report that a further 30 000 ha were destroyed by fire, in spite of all the attempts which had been made to prevent the fire. Under these circumstances the farmer is absolutely powerless. Our experience was such that such fires and sparks from them, driven by strong winds which usually accompany these fires, jumped 60 metre wide stretches such as roads and fire breaks. The farmer is absolutely powerless against this, in spite of the fact that he receives every assistance from his neighbours.

Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to address a special word of gratitude and praise in this regard to the men of the Defence Force in those areas, who were always prepared to lend assistance in putting out these fires. However, we shall have more of these fires. It is an annual occurrence in our country to have veld fires, uncontrolled veld fires, fires which cause damage. The average area damaged by uncontrolled fires in South Africa is 434 000 ha per year, and such damage is calculated at approximately R3 million—it is very difficult, of course, to determine the damage to pastures caused by fires. This means that the farmer is constantly exposed to the risk of a veld fire. His whole farm may bum down which would mean that he would be completely ruined. Fortunately the damage to crops by fires in South Africa is still relatively small, but without meeting trouble halfway, I want to say that in the times in which we are living we must have regard to the fact that our harvests, and to a much larger extent our fields, may be the sphere in which sabotage can be committed. Then the question is: What protection do we have against these destructive fires? Now it so happens that another department also has to deal with the problem of veld fires. I am referring to the Department of Forestry, which also experiences extensive damage being caused by fires annually. I make special mention of the Department of Forestry, as this brings me to the plea I want to make this afternoon. In view of this ever present danger of fires with which the Departments of Agriculture and Forestry have to contend, I want to ask that a inter-departmental committee be appointed from these two departments to investigate the possibility of making an aircraft service available for combating fires. In Canada a special aircraft has been designed for fire fighting. It is a type of aircraft which is relatively manoeuvrable and which can take in five tons of water in a matter of ten seconds. I do not want to elaborate on all the excellent qualities of this aircraft. I just want to ask that we consider appointing an inter-departmental committee to investigate the possibility of an air service of this kind, for the protection of the pastures and crops of our farmers as well as for the protection of our large forestry plantations and our catchment areas in the mountains.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to follow up on what was said by the hon. member for Kimberley North, except by saying that I support his plea in connection with veld fires. Recently I was in the Northern Cape where, particularly during the winter months, there is a great danger of fires starting in the dry grasslands. I should also like to thank the hon. member for Orange Grove for the contribution he made in connection with uht milk. The hon. the Minister knows that I am very interested in uht milk and I should like to advise him to put into effect the recommendations of the commission in connection with the Dairy Board and the Milk Board as soon as possible. Should he reorganize the controlled and uncontrolled areas, it will greatly facilitate the distribution of uht milk.

In this Parliament it does not often happen that a member of the Opposition praises a Cabinet Minister. However, I do want to do so today. When the hon. the Minister was appointed as a Deputy Minister some years ago, his hair was pitch black. Now it is grizzly. That does prove that he worked hard. I am obliged to say that this hon. member—and we on this side of the House appreciate it—has piloted more legislation in favour of and for the benefit of the farmer through this House during the short time in which he was Minister and Deputy Minister than all his predecessors since 1948 put together. We appreciate this, because this is in the interests of the farmer. This hon. Minister appointed a Marketing Commission and today we have a well-considered and informative report from that commission before us, a report that we are able to discuss here fully. The implementation of the recommendations contained in the report will also be in the interests of the farmer. On behalf of all the farmers in South Africa, we thank the Minister for it. We hope that he will remain in that post for a long time. I would even say that when we win the next election he may as well walk over to our side; we shall appoint him as Minister of Agriculture again. [Interjections.] There are thousands of South Africans who are thankful for the role he and his officials played in saving the Bushman’s River by removing the rubbish and the silt from the river bed. It is also their thanks I want to place on record here today.

†Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to a plea which I made here during the Second Reading of the budget Bill, a plea which is mainly directed towards the hon. the Minister of Finance, but which, I believe, is very definitely and essentially also the concern of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. What I ask for—and what I also asked for earlier—is that special funds should be made available to assist young farmers in the released and proclaimed areas of this country who wish to re-establish themselves elsewhere. That is absolutely essential, as some of our best and most productive farmers are virtually frozen into those areas, because of the application of the Government’s policy. They must be afforded the opportunity of being able to move out of the released areas when the bad or aged farmer has to pull out. Also in this connection, I believe that it is of the utmost importance that an agreed and accepted formula for valuations in those areas should be worked out between the Department of Agriculture Credit and Land Tenure, organized agriculture and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture, I believe, would earn the sincere appreciation of many thousands of farmers affected throughout the Republic if such a formula were to be found. I do not wish to detail the shortcomings of the present system, as my time is limited. However, in the knowledge that these problems have been brought pertinently to the notice of the hon. the Minister, I would like to move on to what I regard to be the most important factor, namely the financing of agriculture.

*We are all faced with the decentralization of industries and commerce. The oldest, the most important and the most decentralized industry in the world is agriculture. It is the outpost of civilization, of the welfare and the defence of any country, and it is of cardinal importance that the financing of agriculture should take place on a healthy basis. The farmer should be encouraged to stay on the land, and to stay on the land productively, otherwise our civilization and mankind will die out.

I want to express a few ideas for the attention of, and for serious consideration by, the hon. the Minister. In the first place I believe that agricultural financing should be consolidated under the auspices of one single organization. In other words, that the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and the Land Bank should be amalgamated to deal with agricultural financing and all related matters. It is essential that there should be one organization to do all this financing. In the second place provision should be made for tax exemption in respect of moneys invested by agriculture in this body, in the same way money that can be invested in a building society. The money of farmers who do have savings is invested in building societies today, not because they receive a good rate of interest there, but because their investments are tax-free. I want to ask that it should also be done in the same spirit in respect agricultural financing.

Because agriculture is the most decentralized industry in South African and because agriculture is the largest border industry in South Africa, this sector should also have concessions similar to those enjoyed by commerce and industry in border areas and at growth points.

†This is not a light-hearted suggestion made without thought or consideration. Why should commerce and industry alone benefit from tax holidays, transport concessions and low interest loans if they move to decentralized areas? The young farmer who today starts farming, whether he purchases the land or whether he inherits it, has to carry a very heavy load of debt in respect of the cost of the land or, if he has inherited the land, as a result of death duties and possible family adjustments that have to be made in accordance with the estate. The farmer who develops his farm for greater productivity must incur debt. The farmer who suffers a drought, a flood or “misoes” must incur debt in order to survive and to keep his livestock alive. There is no tax holiday for such a man. Every cent he pays back in interest or in redemption of his debt, is taxed as profit. I believe this hon. Minister should speak to his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, in this connection. After all, when one goes to a border industry area or to a growth point one gets a tax holiday, one even receives assistance to establish oneself there. Why can similar concessions not be granted to farmers who are making improvements or starting out, or to farmers who have experienced serious setbacks like we have so frequently in South Africa as a result of droughts and floods?

It is all very well to say that subsidies and loans are available, but what is available is not sufficient and I firmly believe that if these suggestions of mine are accepted, we can possibly phase out a lot if the subsidy systems which are in existence today. After all, of one can be assured that the profits on investments in one’s own agricultural finance organization will not be taxed and if one can be assured that whatever one pays back on debt incurred to establish oneself on the agricultural map is not going to be taxed as profit, then one does not need a subsidy. One can farm comfortably, at peace with oneself and one can develop. This is what the young people of South Africa need.

*Surely our farmers form a border industry and in future they are going to become more of a border industry in South Africa. They are the outposts of our country.

The pioneers.

They certainly are the pioneers. When we look at the situation in Rhodesia, it is the farmer defending his country in the front line. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must excuse me if I do not react to his argument. However, I should like to urge our hon. the Minister preferably not to avail himself of the kind offer. I feel that we in this House will not survive the bad day of a UP take-over. If the hon. member feels so attracted towards the hon. the Minister, the solution would probably be that he should make a move on his part. However, we share the hon. member’s sentiment with respect to the position in which our hon. Minister finds himself.

I should also like to agree with what the hon. member for Bethlehem said, namely that the hon. the Minister and his deputy are in high favour with the agricultural sector. Indeed he and the Government are the friends of the producer. Since this is the case, I take the liberty of presenting a few bottlenecks in the agricultural industry to hon. members.

If there is a sector in agriculture which we can describe as problematical, it is definitely the meat industry, and the red meat industry in particular. Since the most important producing areas are situated far away from the markets, they are hit the hardest by increases in, for example, transport rates and general price increases as well as the decrease in the value of money. Assistance of some form or another is extremely necessary to help the producer on the short term. There must be assistance to prevent more and more producers leaving their farms to find a livelihood elsewhere. We can only hope for action on the part of the Government to prevent an eventual collapse of this industry.

Of course there are measures which the producer himself can and must make. In the first place we think of absolutely effective farm management and, in the second place, of the increase of the calf percentage, which is alarmingly low at the moment. By increasing the calf percentage effectively, the producer can increase his income without additional capital investment. In the third place, only good breeding material must be used. Quality must be our motto.

According to the most recent report of the Meat Board it appears that 46% of all slaughterings produced meat of a second grade or lower quality. This means that more than half of all the cattle which were slaughtered, were not ready for the market. Take a large, remote area like South West Africa. Here everyone is dependent on natural food resources and natural grazing. The price of maize, and added to that the high price of railway rates, make it impossible to fatten the cattle economically in this case. The producer in the far off areas must therefore market the product as is. However, in my opinion, an important aid in this connection is included in the recommendations of the Wentzel Commission. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has already referred to this extensively. By doing away with the compulsory carcass auction, we can obtain art increase of approximately 10% to 15% in our meat production without additional numbers. Just think of the possibility of cattle which are not yet ready for the market being disposed of in Cape Town, sold and prepared for the market, before being slaughtered. The meat dealers will now be able to buy selectively and will even be able to purchase in the production areas. This will undoubtedly have a great influence upon our rural auctions, which is very essential.

A further recommendation of the commission which is going to affect the consumer and producer, is the abolition of the compulsory registration of abattoirs, the compulsory hours, etc. The question is always posed: Why are there all the limitations on red meat and why is there all this discrimination? I should like to congratulate the commission on a very enlightening, practical report. I should like to agree with previous speakers and ask the hon. the Minister to accept the report, because it is definitely in the interests of both producer and consumer.

As far as red meat is concerned, we have the product. Important aids are being recommended here now, but we still need publicity. It does not help to have the finest schemes and the best product, if they are not advertised and introduced, or offered in an attractive way. To my knowledge the Meat Board spent approximately 0,04% of finances in the meat industry on advertisements last year. Far more will have to be done. The question arises whether the Meat Board should not also institute self-inquiry. We can consider the Wool Board and what is done there for the producer. If we consider the Maize Board, we find that the maize producers, no matter where they are situated, whether in the Western Transvaal, Eastern Transvaal, in the Free State or wherever they may be, may take their product to the nearest depot and receive the same price for it. There is equal treatment and no railage. If we look at the Karakul Board which succeeded, by means of its publicity abroad, in creating a market for the pelts and even forcing Russia from the market, then the question arises: Cannot the Meat Board come up with imaginative suggestions? Should the product not be presented very much more attractively at all times, both raw and cooked? We wonder why the chicken factory, the breeders of broilers, for example are favoured with State subsidies in the form of cheap maize and State controlled fishmeal prices, while the same means are not granted to the red meat producer. If we look at the increase in meat prices over the past years, it seems impressive. It is indeed impressive if we mention that meat prices rose by 180%, but as against that we must also mention the increase in production costs, and if we go into this, we find that those costs amounted to far more than 200%. I want to mention a few examples. In South West Africa, with its long distances, a roll of wire cost R7 in 1970, but now it costs R22. Whereas railage per head of cattle was R7, it is now R28. A litre of petrol costs as much now as a gallon did in 1970. Therefore I want to make a request to the hon. the Minister and ask whether it is not possible to have the rebate on the conveyance of livestock reintroduced. Would the hon. the Minister not make a request to the hon. the Minister of Finance to see whether he will not be prepared to grant short-term aid? We are grateful to be able to say that the present adjustment in floor prices is already having a favourable effect. The rural auctions are already showing an adjustment, and my information is that there is an increase of as much as 15% in our rural auction as a result of this new adjustment for which we are very grateful to the hon. the Minister. But we must also look at the fluctuations in floor prices. I should like to present these to the committee very briefly. I am just referring to grade 1A beef and to the fluctuation of one day. On 31 January this year meat prices varied between 94 cents and 110 cents per kilogram. On 27 March of this year they varied between 82 cents and 104 cents per kilogram—on one day. This is an upward tendency, and amounts to R44 per carcass of 200 kg. The producer cannot afford this, but fortunately the present adaptation will force this graph down, and the more we can reduce this curve, the more economical and acceptable it will be for the producer to produce on the long term. Cattle can only be marketed after a period of three years. We therefore have a product which is very sensitive. We trust that the hon. the Minister will have a sympathetic ear for this matter as well.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Omaruru will pardon me if I do not react to his arguments, although I support him enthusiastically in the arguments which he presented.

Since the maize industry is such an important factor in our national economy, I should like to say a few words about it. Maize is still the staple food of our country today. Apart from human consumption, it also serves as a very important ingredient in feeding animals. Unfortunately, when the price of maize rises, it also has a chain reaction upon the price of many other types of food, namely the price of meat, milk, eggs, cheese, etc. In other words, maize plays a very important role in the basic price structure of food.

The role which food is going to play in future, has been thoroughly emphasized by the hon. member for Parys and I do not want to repeat it. I think that everyone will agree that to have enough food for every country, should be the first priority. To be able to produce enough food, the producer must receive a price for his product which makes it worth-while for him to produce. However, what is important, is that he must receive prices for his product which will make it possible for him to continue to produce.

Something which causes me a good deal of concern is that we have now reached a stage in which the urban consumer and the producer are moving away from one another. There is a gap between the consumer and the producer which is fast becoming wider. I should like to refer to what the Chairman of the Housewives’ League said after there was an increase in the milk price last year—

After an adjustment in the milk price this year, the same woman said—

When the hon. member for King William’s Town spoke about inexpensive chicken, I could not help thinking of the reaction of the consumers belonging to his party, who opposed him in this connection. This illustrates what I said, namely that that gap is becoming wider. On the one hand, the producer must receive a worth-while price for his product, and on the other hand, the city dweller wants to obtain his food as cheaply as possible, with the result that the one group is pointing a finger at the other. I should like to say very clearly that the time of cheap food is past. Although I sympathize with the urban consumer, I ask him also to understand the problems of the producer.

A fact which cannot be overlooked, is that food in our country was relatively cheap in the past. The breadwinner of a family in South Africa spends an average of 17% of his earnings on feeding his family. In some countries overseas this figure is as high as 50% and in some places it is even higher. I should like to spell it out very clearly that we in South Africa were spoilt with cheap food in the past. Since food was so easily available and cheap, we did not learn to proceed judiciously.

We find that an immense wastage of food takes place in this country. I could not find the figure which indicates what the wastage amounts to per year, but a certain Mr. Verheem of the S.A. Co-ordinating Consumers Board recently said at Stellenbosch that in South Africa R500 million worth of food is being wasted every year. I do not want to guarantee that that figure is correct, but I should like to agree with what the hon. the Deputy Minister said when he pointed out that if one looks at hotels, restaurants and holiday resorts, one is amazed at what is thrown away in the rubbish bins. At entertainments, even private entertainment, one finds an immense wastage. Everyone will agree with me that we waste food worth several million rands in our country every year.

I said that I sympathize with the city dweller, but I must point out that the careful housewife does not simply complain about high food prices; she makes an active attempt to control the expenditure on food and nevertheless feed her family well. The careful housewife tries to balance her budget by purchasing her family’s requirements more judiciously. The careful housewife does not simply load her trolley with articles or products which she thinks she is going to need, she does not allow herself to be caught by the fine packaging of a product, or by a “special offer”.

The maize producer feels, correctly or incorrectly, that his product which has such a great influence on the price index of various types of food, should be kept low, so that the cost of living may be kept low. One must take into consideration the fact that maize farmers are large earners of valuable foreign exchange. During the 1874 export season maize export earned an amount of more than R200 million. For the 1975 season it is expected that this will increase to R300 million. In the difficult times of inflation and bearing in mind the drop in the gold price, these amounts earned by maize abroad, were of immeasurable value for our country. I think that the maize producer deserves a compliment for his contribution towards combating inflation.

In conclusion I should like to thank our hon. Minister and our hon. Deputy Minister on behalf of the maize producers for what they have done for the industry. It is surely unique in the history of the country that the Opposition praises a National Party Minister, especially on matters of agriculture. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that he has the full confidence of the maize producers, and the maize producers in this country see him as a partner in their industry.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winburg who has just resumed his seat has drawn pertinently to the attention of this House the great wastage of foodstuffs that takes place. I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister raised the same subject and that they have done a service to the country and to agriculture in general by bringing this important factor to the attention of the public. I think the wastage which does take place is simply shocking. When we talk about prices of foodstuffs and the cost of living, we must take into account the factors that were raised here by the hon. member and the hon. the Deputy Minister.

We refer to our agricultural policy as being one of the optimum utilization of national resources. That is correct, and I believe that is what we are all striving to achieve. Having said that, however, I think we must also reckon on making optimum use of the feed and foodstuffs actually produced. In this respect I think the public is often very neglectful.

It is my intention to say a few things about the agricultural industry in general. One is aware that during the last decade agriculture had made greater progress than during any other time in the history of South Africa. This period of progress coincides very largely with the term of office of the hon. the Minister. I do not want to say that he is wholly responsible.

Make him blush.

No, I do not want to make him blush either. I do think one can say with a reasonable degree of fairness, however, that he has played a big part, and I should like to record my appreciation for what he himself has done for agriculture.

It is not necessary to study the statistics that are available to one in journals, magazines and official documents to realize the extensive progress that is being made. Anyone with an experienced eye who takes a trip through South Africa today, whether it be into the north-west or through the Western Cape, the Karoo, the Free State or the Transvaal, can immediately see the great progress that is being made. Not only is one struck by the quality of the livestock one sees—the quality of the cattle, sheep and goats in the veld. The quality of the crops is also impressive.

One is also impressed by the great progress that has been made in our country in the combating of soil erosion. Twenty years ago soil erosion was becoming so bad that it was virtually strangling the agricultural industry in South Africa. It is my belief that very largely through the combined efforts of many people representing many facets in our agricultural sector, we have, to a large extent, brought soil erosion under control. In saying that, I am not apportioning the credit to any single individual. I think one must acknowledge that the hon. the Minister and his department have played a big part, and I think they deserve any compliments that are going in this regard. They have come to light, in my estimation, with sensible forward planning and sensible schemes like the stock reduction scheme, a scheme which I think has played a very big part in stabilizing our agricultural industry. The effects of that wise move will, I think, be long felt to be to the benefit of agriculture.

I think organized agriculture itself has played a significant role. The farmers have worked together and done their best in the interests of agriculture. As a member of the agricultural community, and knowing a lot about our farmers, I can say with a measure of pride that I gladly count myself amongst that group of people who call themselves the farmers of South Africa. I think they have played a remarkable role in placing our agriculture on the forefront throughout the world. I say this with pride because this is not a country richly endowed with agricultural resources. We have had to establish our agricultural industry the hard way. I think it has been a tremendous co-operative effort, and today I think we are reaping the rewards of high production as a result of dedicated efforts by all those who are involved.

Sometimes we find that certain sectors of our farming community are perhaps a little upset about certain things. Here I have in mind a minority group in the wool-farming industry. In spite of the fact that in my opinion our wool scheme is playing a great part in stabilizing the wool industry in South Africa, some individuals have decided that this scheme is not functioning as well as it might. My own view is that they are people who have not played a dominant role in organized agriculture, and if they feel that there are things wrong with the wool scheme, my advice to them is to get into the wool organizations and operate through the recognized channels of production.

However great our progress may be and with whatever satisfaction we may review the situation, we must never be complacent. There will always be room for improvement. I think one of the facets of our industry in which there is great room for improvement is the extension services. What I want to say now is no reflection on those extension officers who I believe are doing a wonderful job, but I wonder whether we use our extension officers in the correct way. I believe the department is doing quite a good job in keeping farmers well informed about the latest scientific developments and practices. We have the various media, such as radio and television, and pamphlets, publications and magazines are distributed to the farmers, but I believe that there is no substitute for the personal visit of an extension officer to the farmer. I think the Minister and his department should give this matter serious consideration. In the annual report there is reference to the fact that they cannot get sufficient numbers of trained personnel to do this job. I realize that this is a problem. I believe that we should make use of bursaries and whatever other means we can find in order to encourage people to perform this service in the extension field, and I believe that we in this House who are interested in agriculture should also play our part in encouraging young farmers to become properly trained, so that they can perhaps start their agricultural careers as extension officers. I believe that it is important that where we have trained technical and professional people functioning as extension officers, their time must be devoted very largely to doing extension work amongst the farmers. The hon. the Minister will tell me, I know, that they do have farmers’ days and that these extension officers attend those farmers’ days and give lectures, etc. I believe that they should visit the farmer himself and discuss with him whether he is farming with the right crops, whether he is using the right breed of livestock, and advise him on the latest developments resulting from the extensive research which we have available to us. Generally, the extension officers should advise those farmers who are in need of advice. I do not believe for one moment that our production is at optimum level. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me that on every farm one will be able to find things where improvements can take place. The trained eye of the extension officer, the man who has experience in agriculture, will pick those things up. The farmer may think that he is doing everything in the best possible way, but it may then be pointed out to him that there are certain improvements which can take place. If such improvements are carried out, production will be increased and this is in the interest not only of the individual farmer concerned, but also of the country as a whole. This is a matter which I believe should be further investigated.

Another matter which I think is causing problems in agriculture is the standard of training of the work force. I think there are far too many workmen and labourers on the farms who have too low a level of experience in handling agricultural machinery. The agricultural industry is dependent very largely on the smooth and efficient operation of expensive and highly sophisticated machinery. Very often this expensive machinery is left in the hands of people who are totally untrained to handle that kind of machinery, and it is costing the country millions of rands in repairs. My plea this afternoon is for the Minister to consider whether it is not possible, at the agricultural colleges which are under his control, to make short courses available for the training of workmen on the various farms. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react to the speech made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth-Central. There are a few specific points to which I wish to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister. I do not wish to talk about producer prices either, since I feel that the Government and the Minister have fulfilled their obligation to the farming community and the producers. Therefore I do not want to complain about it, although one likes talking about it and it is the popular subject for discussion. I do believe that we as farmers also have a duty not to expect the Minister and the Government to adjust the prices to our obligations but that we as farmers should also undertake to adjust our obligations to our produce prices.

There are a few matters which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister today because they are causing the farmers a great deal of financial harm. We should like to see something being done about the plagues and pests which farmers have to contend with. Counter-measures have to be found. I refuse to believe that means cannot be found to counteract the problems which farmers in certain regions are experiencing today. In the region of the Western Free State and the Western Cape our farmers are prone to certain infestations of pests and plagues which have occurred recently and which are causing the farmers heavy financial losses. The specific plagues are causing the farmers in our meat production regions a great deal of harm as a result of which the meat production in these areas has dropped considerably. These are regions in which one could say that we produce only meat.

In the first place we have had excessive rains, and our veld is overgrown and recently certain perennial plants have died. The vegetation, i.e. the short-term plants and the annual plants, have changed to such an extent that they no longer have the capacity which our previous plants had which was adapted to nature. That is why we find in the report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services that, because the grass variety and other plant life which one finds there at the moment does not have the sugar content which the previous vegetation had, sheep and cattle are no longer able to build up the sugar quantity in their blood after the excessive growth of grass had had a detrimental effect on growth.

In a few cases as well as plague of midges is being experienced. This plague of midges is such that from September the animals no longer graze during the day, regardless of whether there is food for them or not. They rub bare patches on their heads, necks and bodies, and lie flat on the ground to get rid of the midges—which settle on them in such numbers that one can scrape them off with a trowel. Now, it is also true that when the plague of midges diminishes in January, the plague of mosquitoes begins. The mosquitoes suck the animals’ blood to such an extent that when one decapitates a sheep or a calf, all that flows out is a watery pink fluid. The mosquitoes settle on the animals’ heads and legs and around their eyes, and suck all their blood out.

In addition there is the internal parasites which occur far more frequently today than previously. That plague is also responsible for ewes becoming sterile, with the result that the farmers’ lamb percentage deteriorate tremendously. I can call upon members of the Other Place who can testify that they suffered a loss of 80% on their lamb crop. In addition it happens that there is a 50% and 60% mortality of those lambs which are born, although the farmer does not have the opportunity of marketing the remainder in time, and has to keep them for longer periods than was previously the case. Those which remain are left with a defect which makes them permanently unsuited for the market. That is why I believe that the department has to obtain certain means of counteracting this plague. Remedies do in fact exist today. There is, inter alia, a nine-purpose preparation on the market, a preparation which may be administered to pigs and to cattle. There are seven different preparations for horses, and 42 for sheep, cattle and goats. The manufacturers of those preparations have turned the farms in our part of the country into a financial battlefield. Their preparations are tremendously expensive. Whereas we were previously able to administer doses of these preparations to our animals twice annually, we are now obliged by circumstances to administer these doses to our animals every 21 days. Hon. members from the Free State can testify to the truth of this statement. A 5-litre container of this preparation at present costs R120. No farmer is able to carry on in this way any more. No one can afford such an expensive preparation any more.

Since there is great doubt among farmers today about the effectiveness of all the available preparations, I want to make a request to the hon. the Minister to ensure that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services tests the effectiveness of that preparation in order to establish whether it is really as effective as the manufacturers claim. I want to submit that certain preparations should be placed on the market again. Farmers should be allowed to apply DDT again for certain purposes. It is an essential aid for farmers. In the second place there is the Gouws preparation. I really do not know what harm the Gouws preparation can do. I am not alleging that it is an effective preparation against internal parasites, but it is in fact a tonic for animals. Farmers used it as a tonic, and were then deprived of it. However, I want to allege that a better substance as a substitute for the Gouws preparation will never be found. I want to recommend that farmers should be permitted to obtain the Gouws preparation under a special permit or under a special licence The mosquito plague in particular is not only a danger to animals but is a danger to human beings as well. It could even be a fatal danger. Many of our Coloured labourers became so ill from mosquito bites this year that if medical aid had not been rapidly available they would have died. In fact, there were a number of deaths among them.

Something must be done by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Someone requested me the other day to ask the hon. the Minister to do something, even if it was only to give us a shotgun and a few cartridges so that we could simply start shooting in order to rid ourselves of our frustrations. We must definitely do something. If something is not done, scores of our farmers in the Northern Cape and in the Free State will go under. They will not only suffer hardships. They will go under, simply because they have no means with which they can defend themselves against the plagues afflicting them.

Why are there so many midges?

It is alleged that the Orange River is the cause of it. Pans and valleys are filled with water from the river, and the mosquitoes breed in their millions among the reeds, in the stagnant water. Even during the winter months not all the mosquitoes die off. A large percentage of them remain and are a nuisance even during the winter. The hon. the Minister must please not think that I am raising this matter simply in order to have it placed on record. I am not speaking about it simply to be able to say that it was in fact raised in Parliament. I am speaking about it because it is an urgent need and because requests have even been made at the meetings of agricultural unions to the effect that the Government should give serious attention to this matter. No matter what it costs, something will have to be done. It is impossible for a farmer to stand by and watch his animals dying, while he is powerless to do anything to change the situation. I am certain that there is something which can be done. Where there is a will, there is a way.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow up what the hon. member for Prieska said, although I have sympathy for his problem. This is a problem with which we also have to deal, and I should like to receive that shotgun from the hon. the Minister, if only he would load it with poison gas so that we could shoot the midges with it.

It was pleasant to listen, throughout a long afternoon, to an agricultural debate which was conducted in such a calm manner. It was very clear to us today that things are going well with South Africa, its farmers and its agricultural industry. One ought to be very grateful for that. For that not only our hon. Minister, who is in charge, has to be thanked. Nor is it only our farmers who are good “whizz-kids” on their farms, who have to be thanked, but also a Supreme Being, who has blessed us so richly these past few years, and this year as well. Sometimes the blessings were so abundant that they sometimes turned into plagues. However, the blessings are even greater than if it had not rained and there had not been any. We in South Africa are fortunate that agriculture enjoys so much attention. If we sit still and think about it for a moment, we will realize that this is true. Today we have obtained a report from a commission here, a report dealing with our agricultural matters. I think that agriculture is probably the industry in which the bulk of the population are engaged. A very large number of these people are serving in this industry free of charge as a result of their fondness for it. In this regard we think of all the associations which are active in our agricultural industry. I think for example of the farmers’ associations, the wool growers’ associations, the meat producers’ associations, and all the boards which we have heard about today. A large majority of these thousands of people are helping to make a greater success of the agricultural industry. Many of them are doing it out of fondness for agriculture, and one can admire many of our agricultural leaders. Some of them are sitting in this House. They make so many sacrifices, out of their love for farming, and in order to make a success of it. We ought to be grateful that there are so many people who are selling agriculture in this way without expecting any remuneration for it. We are also grateful for a Department of Agriculture, with its officials, which is providing us with such a good service. In this regard we can boast that we in South Africa are using some of the most modern methods in respect of agriculture. As this research and modern methods increase, we shall reach a stage where the hon. member for Namaqualand need no longer be concerned about the small farmer. A period is going to arrive when the hon. the Minister of Agriculture need no longer concern himself about uneconomic units. We are aware of the fact that, particularly in irrigation areas, an economic subsistence can be made today on a very small piece of land. This is partly as a result of the modern farming methods which are being employed.

Today I want to mention a few examples of how agricultural organizations can serve the farmers. A few years ago, during the 1970-’71 and 1971-’72 seasons, there was a serious textile recession in our country. It was obvious that such a situation had very detrimental effect on our wool. The situation was so bad that the Wool Board for the duration of those two seasons, had to plough back approximately R12 million into the market out of the stabilization fund annually so as to achieve the floor price for that wool. During those two years the income from wool consequently diminished considerably. The example I should really like to mention is perhaps a lesser commodity in the agricultural sector, i.e. karakul fur. In those years we did not know what to do with karakul fur. It was simply not possible for us to place it on the market. We could not afford to send it down to the coast to be marketed there, because the price was too low. The price was not even good enough to cover the railage. That was before the latest rates increases. We were saddled with the karakul fur on the farms, and sometimes when we were building roads and the sand troughs were too deep, we used the karakul fur as a filler In those times the wolves which are forever threatening to devour the farmer when he does not have an organization through which to market his product, came down on the fold. One allowed one’s fur to be taken away for two and three cents a kg, and one was only too pleased to have it taken off your hands. Karakul fur was harder hit than merino wool.

It was in this time, in the 1972-’73 season, that a new marketing system, i.e. the take-over or the pool system, was introduced. As I have already said the karakul farmers were at their wit’s end. They placed their confidence in the Wool Board, one of our biggest organizations. It was decided in future to leave the marketing of the commodity entirely to the Wool Board. The farmers trusted the Wool Board and said: “What you are able to get for us we will be satisfied with.” Today we are laughing happily up our sleeves at this. The Wool Board feels very happy about it, but the farmers feel even happier. They do not want to tell me what the price of karakul fur is these days, but if I were to say that it is approximately 50 cents a kg today, I would probably not be far wrong.

The Wool Board made special efforts. A study in regard to the requirements of the trade was made. The karakul fur was graded into various types, and in this way the trade was satisfied, because they could in that way select the types they wanted. Even the foreign market was explored. Someone was sent overseas to make publicity there, and to advertise karakul fur there. The excellent results are there. Today we are very grateful that the Wool Board placed karakul fur on the market at a very satisfactory price, and did so by means of a satisfactory marketing system. Today many valuable articles are being manufactured from the fur to which no value was attached in the past. That is why it is a privilege for me today, as a karakul farmer, to extend my sincere thanks to the Wool Board on behalf, I think, of thousands of our karakul farmers for what we have achieved in respect of karakul fur. That is all I want to say about that matter.

I should like to associate myself with what my colleague, the hon. member for Omaruru said. I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Agriculture that those of us who are situated in the remoter areas of South West, have been very hard hit recently by the increase in the railage rates.

It is not only the cattle farmer who has been affected, but also the transportation of karakul fur and of small stock, etc. I do not want to spend time on this topic, nor do I want to be difficult about it, but I do want to address a request to the hon. the Minister to support our organizations in those parts of the world and give them guidance and assistance as far as the solutions for which they are seeking are concerned. They are indeed engaged in seeking solutions and in new schemes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the hon. member for Prieska and confirm what he said about the problems of the farmers in the Northern Cape as well as in the northern parts of the Karoo. I was one of those farmers who experienced how sheep died as a result of the plague of midges and mosquitoes in that area. The problem was caused by the tremendously high rainfall we had there. Normally the average rainfall there is between 10 to 12 inches. During the past two years it has risen to almost 40 inches per year. There are farmers who say that they know how to weather a drought, but do not know how to cope with that kind of flood damage and rainfall. The stock losses were tremendous, primarily as a result of the midge problem and the mosquitoes. As the hon. member for Prieska said, it prevents the sheep from grazing. They cannot eat and they are so tormented by the insects that the other problems which the hon. member mentioned here, follow. But apart from the problems he mentioned here, there are also the diseases carried by these insects, diseases such as Rift Valley fever, blue tongue and all the other diseases that go with it. The farmers have inoculated as never before, frequently with great success, and here we have to thank Onderstepoort for the wonderful work they have done in at least making those various vaccines available to us to cope with these problems. I am also grateful to the researchers for the various preparations which they have made available to us. It seemed to me as if the hon. member for Prieska was complaining because there were too many preparations on the market today, and yet asked for additional preparations with which to combat these problems. I want to testify that I found those preparations extremely effective. The problem is sometimes that the farmers do not take the necessary precaution of administering those substances in a scientific way. I see so often that farmers administer doses, at great expense, to their entire flock of 2 000 or 3 000 sheep, and then return them to the same infected camp which has been infected by thousands of internal parasite eggs. After all, one cannot expect those sheep to remain uninfected for long.

I have discovered that the secret is to apply pasture rotation, as recommended by the extension officers, and to place them in camps which have been ungrazed for six months or a year. I have found that a single dosage of these modern preparations protects them for two to three years from internal parasites during times of normal rainfall. Under the present circumstances I have found that one or two doses were sufficient, but then one should have the necessary scientific approach. The preparations are in fact exorbitantly expensive, but they are effective. I feel that the problem is not all that simple to control—I am referring now to midges and mosquitoes—as one might imagine. On the Ghaap plateau there are thousands of pans of water, and in each all the depressions made by the hooves of cattle there are pools of water in which these mosquitoes and midges breed. Consequently control by means of spraying will be an impossible task. In my opinion the only possible solution will be to find a systemic preparation with which we can dose or inoculate the sheep so that these blood-sucking insects can be killed if they come into contact with the body of the live animal. I should request that research be concentrated in that direction. At the same time this would control blood-sucking flies and ticks as well. During these years of heavy rainfall we also had a tremendous tick plague in the Northern Cape. This also caused tremendous problems. Together with all the problems the farmers experienced we also found that it would seem that our lands were leached to such an extent by the abundance of water that we are now experiencing shortages of trace elements, for I do not believe that the tremendous problems we have been experiencing with the livestock in that area were attributable only to the blood-sucking insects.

There was a tremendous polemic in the Northern Cape and in Griqualand West in regard to the shortages of trace elements. There was a stage when we were urged not to provide trace elements, but subsequently we were, on the other hand, urged to do so. At an even later stage, a halt was called to this, and at present everyone is awaiting the thorough investigation which the department was to have arranged to establish what trace elements are in reality required in large parts of South Africa. At present it is felt that there is a serious shortage of zinc among the livestock. On the one hand we were warned against the supplementary feeding of zinc, and on the other hand we were told what wonderful results the addition of zinc to the diet had produced.

But what I am very pleased about is the new biological approach of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to the problems of the farmer. I believe that the biological control off insect pests such as mosquitoes and midges plays a tremendous part in eliminating these temporary plagues. Those who are engaged in the farming industry have already seen how dragonflies water spiders, as well as grey flies have just about eradicated certain mosquitoes in the Northern Cape. Where a person has protected the natural enemies of these pests, a relatively rapid reaction has been obtained and frequently these problems were very soon overcome.

In the excellent report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services one sees how the department has concentrated on the biological control of various plagues, particularly plagues dealing with imported weeds such as the imbricate cactus, hakea and the ordinary cactus. Outstanding results have been achieved in the past with biological control, and I believe that this is the other approach which ought to be adopted in respect of these insect plagues. This approach should be adopted not only in respect of weeds, such as hakea and the various Australian acacias which have proliferated in this country, but that this approach also be adopted in respect of insect plagues. This is the only long-term control measure which will be effective.

Another problem which is being experienced in the Northern Cape is that farmers’ sheep frequently die without it being possible to establish from what causes they died. These sheep are rushed down to Kimberley where samples are taken to be sent away to Onderstepoort. Eventually after months of waiting, the report comes back, and the farmer is informed that the sample disintegrated en route. The ice melted and the sample purified and it was consequently not possible to establish from what causes the animal died. In the meantime the farmer has used every vaccine he was able to get his hands on, and applied shotgun methods to try to control further mortality. For this reason I should like to make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister to see whether it is not possible to establish a bacteriological laboratory in Kimberley. I understand that a post does in fact exist, and that something of this nature can in fact be done if the necessary facilities can be obtained there to enable the farmer to bring his samples in to the laboratory. It will be possible to carry out the post mortem there and then, it will be possible to take samples and it will be possible to carry out the bacteriological examination in loco, without any need to send the samples away. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Benoni will probably pardon me if I do not take the subject which he discussed any further. I believe that he will receive a favourable reply to his representations from the hon. the Minister. Those who are engaged in the agricultural industry are very blessed, we are blessed with a wonderful hon. Minister, an equally wonderful hon. Deputy Minister, as well as equally wonderful officials who manage the departments. However, I make so bold as to say that the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the officials would not have been such excellent people if it had not been for the exceptional calibre of farmer with which South African agriculture is blessed. The South African farmer is a man who does not hesitate to work six days of the week, or even seven days of the week, particularly farmers in the dairy industry. It is this type of man, this farmer, who does not hesitate to work and to venture, so much so that we can say this afternoon that things are going well with the South African agricultural industry. Things are going well, but not because the good things fell into the farmers’ lap. We are dealing here with a person who is hardworking and enterprising, a man who is courageous, and with him there is the farmer’s wife who is ever at his side. Truly, we in South Africa are blessed with farmers who have, during the past decade or two, achieved exceptional results. I am thinking here in particular of the production during the past decade, a production which progressively increased, so much so that the Republic of South Africa is one of the few countries in the world which has an agricultural surplus. Together with that, I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central who discussed the matter of veld improvement. We were blessed with excellent rain years, we were blessed with a livestock reduction scheme, but if it had not been for the ingenuity of the South African farmer as far as veld conservation was concerned, that measure of veld improvement would not have taken place. The achievements in agriculture have been excellent, for we must take into consideration that the land available for agriculture is extremely limited. Together with the limited amount of agricultural land we have a limited quantity of water for irrigation purposes. Together with this there is the fact that the South African farmer is faced with extremes of climatic conditions.

In addition to the tribute I wish to pay to the South African farmer, I also wish to pay tribute to the approximately 8 000 officials of the Department of Agriculture who are constantly engaged in research in the sphere of agriculture. Their entrepreneurial skill has contributed to field husbandry production being virtually doubled since 1960, while the production of certain horticultural crops, over the same period, was increased by approximately 300%. Together with that we have the exceptional achievements of the livestock farmers in regard to the livestock industry.

This morning the hon. member for Newton Park referred to the shortage of extension officers. This is a fact we have to face up to. However, what I find wonderful is that in spite of the limited number of extension officers, we still have the fact that we have had continuous expansion in the sphere of agriculture as the result of extension. I would therefore like to state here that we are exceptionally fortunate in having had this calibre of extension officer at our disposal. These achievements are all the more noteworthy if we take into consideration the risk factor with which the South African farmer has to cope. In this regard I want to mention the fact that the farmer not only has to contend with the elements and with nature, these elements which frequently cripple the farmer, as has recently become apparent again from what the hon. member for Prieska and the hon. member for Benoni had to say here. There is also another factor with which the farmer has to struggle, i.e. that the price of his produce cannot be determined in advance, but only after he has already produced it. This is a factor which really causes the farmer many problems, so much so that he cannot always plan his production well. In this regard I also want to refer to the production of red meat. It is a fact that there has been a drastic fall-off in the total slaughterings in controlled areas since 1970, while the price of red meat has risen tremendously; in other words, while slaughterings decreased—smaller numbers of livestock were slaughtered—the total amount earned rose tremendously. This is excellent. One is grateful for that. The other factor which we have to take into account is, however, the phenomenal increase in the production costs of the farmer. Here I want to mention to you what has already been mentioned repeatedly in this context. I am referring to the 50% increase in railway rates for the conveyance of livestock, the third increase within three years. This is a factor in the farming industry which requires our positive attention. If the agricultural industry does not continue to plan through research, I do not see how we will be able to maintain our production in future.

In regard to planning through research I should like to mention something which is developing in the Great Fish River Valley. That valley, with its wonderful possibilities for field husbandry and horticultural production, is being crippled by a lack of knowledge in regard to planning. As a result of the high water level in that valley, that area is in reality being crippled. There have been requests for the establishment of at least a trial plot in that valley, and although the department is sympathetically disposed towards such a step, the necessary manpower and funds are not available for such a trial plot. My plea to the hon. the Minister is that further attention should be given to this matter, in spite of the shortage of manpower and funds. This problem requires immediate attention.

However, there is another factor in regard to planning through research. It has been found that sugar cane can be cultivated very effectively in the lower Sundays River Valley. Soil tests have already been carried out in this regard. Climatological tests have also been made, and it has been found that the entire set-up there lends itself admirably to the cultivation of sugar cane. It is a commodity which we believe is going to be in short supply in the near future as the result of the increase in the buying power in this country. The individual farmer is not in a position to launch this project. Therefore I am advocating once again an investigation through research into the cultivation of sugar cane in this area of the lower Sundays River Valley, which lends itself admirably to this industry.

I also want to mention the numerous plagues—which we have just heard about— with which the farmers are having to cope. I am thinking, for example, of the increase in plagues such as jointed cactus Nazella grass and the silver-leaf bitter apple, against which no counter-agent exists, but which are in fact encroaching on thousands of hectares of beautiful agricultural land. With this wideawake department of ours I believe that we are keeping pace with developments, and we are proud of the fact. However, I want to bring the above-mentioned matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Somerset-East on his interesting speech. Unfortunately I cannot react to what he said about the wide variety of plagues, from mosquitoes to jointed cactus. We in the Eastern Transvaal have been spared those plagues. There were a few previous speakers in this debate who referred to the dairy industry and to dairy products, and I just want to make a few observations in this regard.

The hon. member for King William’s Town, in his very fine, positive speech on the problems, referred inter alia to subsidies in agriculture with the object of helping the lesser privileged. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South also emphasized the objective of subsidies to assist the lesser privileged. The farmer from “Lemoenkloof”, i.e. the hon. member for Orange Grove, also referred to the subsidy as support for the lesser privileged. This is the intention with the subsidy, but we are convinced that that subsidy does not work out that way in practice. I want to quote a single example. I think that the subsidy on white bread is a subsidy for the rich and for the gourmets. I think we should prefer to have white milk form part of the diet of a family rather than to have white bread on the table. That subsidy on white bread is costing our government R90 million, which is a very expensive investment.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg-South also asked for the free distribution of milk. However, there is one problem attached to the relaxation of control over distribution, and that is the pollution of the milk as such. Sir, milk is simply a product which one cannot wash and then use. If it has been polluted, it is polluted, and it is dangerous to use that milk.

To return to the producers themselves, I want to say that they are the producers of a commodity which is essential in the diet of our people. I cannot see how we can cease to prescribe milk as a very essential component in a balanced diet. It is really of great importance to the growth and physical development of our children. We find, however, that there is a drop in the number of milk producers. In the annual report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing we find statistics which indicate that there has in fact been a decrease in the numbers. Why has there been such a decrease? I think that we can summarize the reasons into three main points.

In the first place it is an industry with a large measure of uncertainty as regards its continuity and its continued existence. It is capital intensive and requires a large investment of capital for the necessary machinery, construction of buildings, plans and productive animals.

It is an industry with major labour problems. As the hon. member for Somerset East indicated, it is this industry in which a farmer works seven days a week. I do not even want to tell you how many hours per day such a farmer works, Sir. There is simply no manual labour available any more. It is therefore necessary to convert to an ever-increasing measure of mechanisation, which requires a considerable degree of capital investment.

The next problem is the distribution problem, which pushes up the cost of the product. Basically we have those three problems in this industry.

There are certain recommendations which, in all humility, I want to submit to the hon. the Minister. In the first place I want to recommend, in support of previous speakers and also in support of what is mentioned in the report of the Wentzel Commission, that the two boards be amalgamated. We find that the two boards already have total funds of approximately R15½ million at their disposal. Those funds may be combined, to the benefit of the producer as well as the consumer. I think that this would lead to a cost saving for our farmers.

The following recommendation I want to make is the registration of all our dairy farmers. There has to be compulsory registration. We find that in the summertime there is a surplus of supply because those whom we could call the summer farmers, who are not regular milk producers, then market their products. This causes a surplus on the market, and as a result of that we find price fluctuations and price factors which have a detrimental effect on the regular milk producer.

Another recommendation is that a certain standard should be laid down for all cowsheds and for all dairy herds, so that all milk which is delivered may qualify as fresh milk.

We must not draw a distinction between the present fresh milk and industrial milk, for what happens when there is a shortage of fresh milk? In that case, the industrial milk is fed into the fresh milk channel in any case. On the other hand, it happens today, as a result of our distribution problems, that when the container unit arrives too late at the central depot, that milk is no longer accepted and is rejected as industrial milk. This is a great loss to a farmer who has equipped his cowsheds for fresh milk production. Although his product complies completely with the standards, it is rejected as industrial milk because of the refusal to accept delivery. Most of our farmers who produce industrial milk—I am speaking with a reasonable knowledge of our farmers in the highveld region—have equipped themselves in this way in any case, because it is to their advantage, and because they are more easily able to retain the services of their labour if they equip their cowsheds in such a way that these cowsheds qualify for the production of fresh milk in any case. If it were possible to arrange matters in this way, it would also be possible to facilitate the distribution of milk, for it would then be possible for the distribution points to be the nearest source of delivery. It will then be possible to eliminate the separate delivery of fresh milk and industrial milk. Arrangements can then be made in such a way that the nearest zone delivers fresh milk, while the remoter places will be able to deliver milk at the same price to our industries so that provision could be made for the other products. This would make a great cost saving possible for the farmer.

We would also like to request a re-appraisal or reconsideration in this regard in order to help our dairy farmers. We have very competent and skilled people among our number, and if we are able to erect large grain silos at high cost—we do not begrudge the cultivators of our field crops these facilities—I want to ask whether we cannot also appropriate money for the establishment of central depots in our large consumption centres to serve as receiving units to enable the cheaper distribution of milk. We also want to request that a marketing promotion campaign be launched in respect of our milk production, so that the Housewives League do not organize a resistance movement, but help to educate the people to buy milk instead of liquor. If one visits the squatter camps and similar lesser privileged areas, one notes with astonishment what quantities of liquor are being consumed there. We have to launch a marketing promotion campaign to place milk on the market as a nutritional product for our children, a product which may be consumed with pleasure.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kimberley North has dealt with subjects that are very close to my heart, and I am afraid I am going to allow myself to be led astray and to deal with some of the subjects he has dealt with, instead of the subject that I wished to discuss with the hon. the Minister. I hope I shall have time for that as well. When he says that he would rather have white milk in a household than white bread, I agree with him entirely. Since the last increase in the price of white bread, when the whole of that increase was taken out of the pocket of the housewife and put into the pocket of the Government, we have had no white bread in my house at all. We never have white bread and I must say that we are much better off having brown bread.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider the implication of what the hon. member for Standerton has said and of what I am saying now. I wonder if the time has not come for the hon. the Minister to halve the subsidy on white bread and to double the subsidy on brown bread. Let us reduce the price of brown bread and let us increase the price of white bread. I believe that the hon. the Minister will be surprised at the result of such a step. I also believe that that will be the proof of the argument which he and I have had over the years about my submission that the primary factor in selling a good product— accepting that the quality is always there—is the price. Coupled with this, I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister to ask the CSIR, together with the Division of Nutrition of his department, to go into the question of making brown bread more palatable for the Black people. Black people have certain likes and dislikes when it comes to taste. One can ask any commercial firm to verify this. One dairy concern is at the moment producing magou with a ginger beer flavour. Magou, the traditional drink of the Black people—a drink produced from mealie meal—is being produced with a ginger beer flavour because market research discovered that Black people were buying magou together with ginger beer and mixing the two. Now, magou is being produced with a ginger beer flavour. I commend this idea to the hon. the Minister.

This is part of the marketing concept, part of what we meant when, in our commission’s report, we referred to the fact that the boards, the department and everybody else must become more marketing orientated. The boards must forget about controlling; there should not be control boards. Production must not be controlled. Marketing must not be controlled. Products should be put on the market, and for that to be done, the department must find out what the farmers can produce, what the consumer wants and then marry those two things together. That is what must be done. I commend that idea to the hon. the Minister. He has disagreed with the recommendation of the commission. One of his main objections is the alleged contamination which can result if there are to many distributors. I cannot agree with him, because every distributor of milk is subject to the health regulations of the local authority wherever he is situated. I believe that the local authorities can look after half a dozen distributors here in Cape Town, instead of only the three they have at the moment. I also believe that they can comply with exactly the same health regulations, whether there are 6 or 26 distributors. I am glad to have the support of that hon. member with regard to the problem of distribution costs. That is something we shall have to look into.

The hon. member has also raised the question of compulsory registration of dairy farmers and of standard specifications for stables and dairies. If he looks at the report, he will see—in paragraph 81.3—that we have suggested that a committee should be established on which both sections of the dairy industry must be represented, together with the department of the hon. the Minister, in order to go into these very points. We felt it was outside the terms of reference of the commission to go into the details of the implementation of the recommendation, but we have made the recommendation in all sincerity and we would like to see it carried through.

I now want to refer to the poultry industry. I believe this industry is to be congratulated in this time of inflation, because if there is one sector of agriculture which has kept prices down more than any other, it has been this one. While the cost of living has increased since 1971 by 78%, the average retail price of eggs has climbed by only 35%—from 31 cents a dozen in 1971 to 42,7 cents a dozen in 1976. During the same period of time the average net realization to producers has risen by 45%. This indicates that we have here an industry which has become more efficient in the production of its product. The producer has received a higher return, while, at the same time, the industry has kept the increase to the consumer to a minimum. I believe this is the ideal we should all aim at. However, the increase to the consumer could have been even lower had we had some way of controlling the massive surpluses which will result and which have resulted from this greater efficiency of production within the industry. The surpluses have resulted, not because there has been a decrease in consumption but because there has been an increase in the efficiency of production.

I stress that point. We in this House were forced to pass legislation in order to curtail the production of eggs. The hon. the Minister knows that I have been critical of the way in which he and his department have administered this Act, because despite the provisions of this Act, we have continued to have surpluses which have grown from 369 000 cases or 11 million dozen eggs in 1971 to 880 000 cases or 26 million dozen eggs in 1976. This means an increase of more than 100% in the surplus in five years’ time, while the consumption has, in fact, more than doubled as well. That has happened despite the Act. When we look at the report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, we find the following on page 48—

Further on we find the following—

The most significant statement of all was the following—

With respect to the hon. the Minister and his department, for the first time I can see the problem which the hon. the Minister and the department have. It would appear that he has been issuing permits to farmers to produce eggs, which the farmers did not use. The hon. the Minister should introduce an amendment to the Egg Production Control Act to provide that if a farmer does not take up the quota which is granted to him within a reasonable time, that quota shall be taken away from him, because for the first time I realize exactly what the problem has been. It is apparent that these producers have obtained from the department, in one way or another, permits for birds which they had no intention of keeping. Now, as the prices have increased over the years and as their efficiency has increased, they have increased their flocks within the limits allowed by the permit, but above the requirements of the country.

I believe the hon. the Minister has a duty to balance the number of birds allowed in terms of the permit with the requirements of the country. We have to aim for a small surplus; we all accept that. We have to aim for a surplus, because there will be times when production is going to drop and we shall need any surplus we can get. However, I do not believe that we need to have produced in this country 26 million dozen surplus eggs which are going to be exported or disposed of, by whatever means, at a loss of R5 million. R5 million is an awful lot of money. It represents 3 cents for every dozen of eggs the housewife in this country has bought. The consumption of eggs has more than doubled during the last four years. The egg price can be reduced by 3 cents a dozen if we can balance production with consumption as the hon. the Minister will concede, because then we can do away with the levy. If we can reduce the price of eggs by 3 cents a dozen, we shall redouble the consumption of eggs again in the next four years. I believe we shall then enter the so far untapped markets—in particular the Black markets—in this country. If they can obtain a product at a lower price, they will buy it. I have proved this in my supermarket and I have told the hon. the Minister this before. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must forgive me if I do not react to his argument. The importance of pedigree stock breeding was realized by the State as far back as 1814 when Lord Charles Somerset imported pedigree cattle from the United Kingdom. In 1815 he also introduced pedigree merino sheep from Spain into the country. Since that time large numbers of pedigree stock of various breeds have been imported from various parts of the world. More than adequate numbers of stock have been brought into the country since that time. The then departments of Agriculture of the various colonies participated in the importation of such animals to a large extent. They even established research stations at Potchefstroom and Standerton for the purpose of making available to the South African stock farmers improved genetic material through stud farms. Consequently the need to establish a South African Stud Book Association of our own was realized by all. Mr. Alex Holm, who was on the staff of the Potchefstroom branch of the Department of Agriculture at that time, exerted himself for the establishment of our own South African Stud Book Association as well as various Stock Breeders’ Associations. As long ago as 1903 a meeting of stock farmers representing the various colonies as well as the various departments of agriculture was called at Bloemfontein at which a decision was taken in favour of the establishment of our own South African Stud Book Association. In 1905 the S.A. Stud Book Association was established for the purpose of keeping record of animal husbandry and for promoting the development and the improvement of the livestock of the country.

During 1920 provision was made by means of legislation for the incorporation of the S.A. Stud Book Association and of societies affiliated thereto engaged in the evolution of any new breed of livestock. Consequently the S.A. Stud Book Association was incorporated on 21 April 1921. Since that time, in terms of various ordinances of the then protectorates and the Rhodesias the S.A. Stud Book Association has been rendering all the necessary services in this regard in the territories and the countries concerned, as is still doing today. Ever since its establishment the S.A. Stud Book Association and its affiliated breeders’ societies have exerted themselves with dedication for the upgrading of all farm livestock through the provision of breeding stock to the livestock industry with a view to raising the general standard of the country’s livestock.

At the celebration of its fifteenth anniversary in 1971 the S.A. Stud Book Association, in view of the rapidly changing conditions and needs, deemed it necessary to undertake an in-depth investigation at a high level so as to determine in what way the pedigree livestock industry could make bigger and even more constructive contributions to livestock improvement. Consequently at the instance of the then Minister of Agriculture, it took the initiative, in close co-operation with the Animal and Dairy Science Research Institute to determine the shortcomings in and the needs of the livestock industry and to find possible solutions so as to enable it to keep abreast of the scientific and technological developments in order to be able to meet the future needs of the country. Like the Department of Agriculture, the Stud Book Association conducted a thorough investigation into organized livestock industries in various leading countries in the world so as to enable it to determine the best possible system for stock improvement applicable to South African conditions and circumstances. New approaches and the need for improvement, not only in the methods employed by the pedigree livestock industry, but also in the necessity to place all facets of the livestock industry on a properly coordinated level in order to enable the entire livestock industry to meet future needs became apparent from this investigation. The need for new legislation consolidating all facets of livestock improvement, was very clear to the S. A. Stud Book Association and especially the establishment of an advisory council for animal production for the purpose of assisting the Minister of Agriculture in an advisory capacity in respect of planning and development in the livestock industry.

The increase in the relative importance of animal production and animal products in the economy of developing countries in particular, has become a feature of recent times and this can only be effected by applying modern science and technology to an ever increasing extent. Even in countries such as Sweden and France, it was found necessary to make urgent adjustments by amending existing legislation and even by introducing special legislation. Consequently it is regrettable that the consolidating legislation for livestock improvement cannot be piloted through Parliament this year already. The S.A. Stud Book Association in particular, and the livestock industry as a whole, owe the hon. the Minister of Agriculture an enormous debt of gratitude, however, for the fact that he has already agreed to the appointment of an interim advisory council for animal production. I trust that it will be put into operation as soon as possible, because I have no doubt that the council will do very good job of work.

As far as the S.A. Stud Book Association itself is concerned, it was realized after thorough investigation that although the pedigree livestock industry may look back with satisfaction to the contribution it has made in the sphere of livestock improvement over the past 50 years, it will have to accept ever greater responsibilities in respect of livestock improvement. The association realizes that the task of the pedigree livestock breeder to provide the livestock industry with breeding stock which has the necessary genetic potential, will necessitate major sacrifices and adjustments. The pedigree livestock industry therefore sees its future task not only as keeping records of pedigree, but it sees pedigree livestock breeding as the nucleus of the livestock industry which has to provide the necessary genetic seed material to the livestock industry. In order to be able to do this, it is essential for it tom have all achievements and other information at its disposal. The industry owes the hon. the Minister a debt of gratitude for the various achievement test schemes which have already been put into operation.

The use of an electronic computer for record keeping and data processing is essential, however, so as to render it possible that such processed data can be used as an additional aid in selection programmes. Therefore, the use of an electronic computer by the pedigree livestock industry is essential, but the high costs involved in such mechanization cannot, however, be financed by the industry itself. Because of the responsibility which the State also has in respect of the development of the livestock industry, it is essential that the State provide the necessary financial aid so as to enable the pedigree livestock industry to obtain the required computer facilities so that they may be able to serve the livestock industry even more efficiently. Therefore I should like to address a friendly but urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister to give the S.A. Stud Book Association the necessary financial aid.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.