Mr Chairman, before the Committee reported progress last night, I referred to the regulations that applied to the occupation of farms in the designated areas. The problem, however, is that these regulations only apply to owners who bought land in the designated areas after the Designated Areas Development Act had come into operation. Since not many transactions in buying and selling of farms have taken place since the implementation of this Act, because of the high prices of land and the prevailing poor economic conditions, most of the uninhabited farms have not been affected by this Act at all.

I have a letter with me from one of the farming associations in my constituency in the region of Maasstroom near the Botswana border. This farming association tells me in the letter there are 60 farms in their region and 29 of those 60 farms are not occupied at all. Farm gates are locked, which hampers control of undesirable elements. This also makes this region extremely unsafe for people who have already experienced the fatal results of landmine explosions.

In view of these facts, I want to ask the hon the Minister to see whether the existing Act is still adequate in bringing about the effective augmentation of the population in the designated areas.

Far-reaching decisions will have to be taken to resolve this problem. Perhaps one should consider making the occupation requirement of 300 days per year applicable with retrospective effect to all farmers in that region. Where this is not possible, one can consider the possibility of the Government’s purchasing that land and selling it to young farmers who want to settle in that area permanently. It can also be made available to established farmers who are living on uneconomic units, so that they can extend their land and can occupy and cultivate economic units.

In addition I want to express my thanks towards the hon the Minister for the relief measures he announced in the House on 26 March 1986 in respect of aid measures for farmers in the designated areas. I can assure the hon the Minister that this brings great relief to farmers who are experiencing very difficult agricultural conditions.

On the other hand, I also want to mention that a number of farmers are still in a desperate financial condition. Many reasons can be given for this. In my opinion the protracted drought in particular has been to the disadvantage of many farmers and has even broken some of them. That is why I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether he is considering announcing further relief measures for the farmers in the designated areas. If his answer is positive, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether or not he can give us an indication of the direction his thoughts are taking.

If we are going to lose farmers in the designated areas, not only will agriculture suffer, but the whole community will be affected detrimentally. Schools can empty; churches can empty; the number of members in the commandos can decrease; and so on. We cannot afford that, and that is why in my opinion, a further aid programme for farmers in the designated areas is imperative. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Potgietersrus, since he made a plea for the designated areas and pointed out their problems. I associate myself wholeheartedly with what he said.

We also had the privilege of visiting part of that area as a defence group. The question arises as far as the defence of these farms is concerned—the hon member also referred to the problems in this connection— as to whether a levy should not be placed on such property in areas in which the Defence Force has to take the responsibility for its security. I want to associate myself wholeheartedly with the hon member who said whether or not the steps taken are economically justifiable, is not at question. The fact is that such areas have to be occupied and manned.

On the one hand I want to express my thanks and appreciation towards the most senior official in this department, but on the other hand also towards those officials who are often not seen. I come from an area which has regular drought problems. I do now think anyone who is not involved in drought problems knows how much paperwork is associated with each application that is made. On behalf of my constituency and my area, I want to express our thanks and appreciation this morning to those officials one never sees, because we know under what pressure and at what rate they have had to work, and one never heard an unfriendly word from them. Nor can I omit to express my thanks to our magistrates’ offices, which have had to deal with this vast number of forms without extra staff all these years. Since there has been a great relief in the stock areas, I want to make use of this opportunity to convey my thanks to each of these people who contributed to alleviating the distress.

It was pointed out during this debate and previous debates that agriculture is in dire financial straits. There is no doubt about that. One of the main problems was that the farmers had to face this drought without capital reserves. When the drought began to affect them, there were no reserves to keep them going, and in the area I come from the small stock farmers had built up a debt burden over the years; this also applies to farmers in other agricultural sectors. Although the stock farmers are regarded as being the farmers who are best off in the agricultural sector today, there are sections in the North-West—I referred to this—where their debt burden has mounted up to much more than R100 per small stock unit. This is not debt which can be repaid within a year or two.

In addition to feed debt, other debts have accumulated too. Time and patience are needed to resolve these problems. We know the North-West is an area which can give most generously for a year or two, but then it takes back again, because in our region we are as sure of having drought as that the sun will rise. It is merely the intervals which are not always the same.

One has great appreciation for the assistance granted through the years by both the departments of agriculture and by financial institutions such as the Land Bank. Nor can I neglect to mention the contributions made by co-operatives in this respect. If we did not have the agricultural co-operatives in the rural areas, very few of our farmers would be left. The financial position of the co-operatives is also under pressure today as a result of the enormously high capital requirements that have to be met. They have to supply the farmers with a great deal of credit.

The agricultural co-operatives in the small stock regions have the problem that they cannot lend money with an interest subsidy on it to their producers, because they do not qualify for this. The farmer therefore has to pay a higher interest rate on the feed he purchases. This extra debt puts him in even more trouble.

As I said, I also have great appreciation for other financial institutions such as commercial banks and so on which help the farmers.

Naturally there are other problems too, such as the too high land prices to which reference was made. I agree with this, but when one is drowning, one grabs at every straw, even if it is the value of the land which is increasing and therefore enabling one to borrow from the bank to help one through the difficult times, because one believes that better days will come. We all believe there will be better days, and these have already begun. Despite the years of drought, the farmers, still have faith, confidence in their industry and a love for it. As long as we can retain this attitude in the farming sector, I believe we shall surmount these problems too.

There is sympathy today with the man who has a very high debt burden as a result of the economic conditions in which he had no part. We believe he will surmount these problems too.

I want to associate myself with the hon member for Potgietersrus who referred to the lower return and the higher risk that farming bears today as a result of the natural elements, higher interest rates etcetera. This has a discouraging effect on the young farmers. We cannot lose the younger farmers, however. As was pointed out, the farming industry is the pivot around which the whole economic activity of the rural areas revolves. In the first place, the farmer is the chief provider of work and the chief employer. The local business enterprises suffer when the farmers suffer.

One has great appreciation for the fact that the Land Bank makes capital available to the farmers at lower interest rates than the ordinary financial institutions do. It is also dependent on market related interest rates, however, and as a result, with the return and risks involved, the younger farmers wonder whether they will be successful even if they have to pay only 14% interest.

As I have just said, we have already entered a period of better farming prospects. A few years ago all capital repayments and so on were earmarked to flow back into the revolving fund, and that return flow has already begun. I want to make a plea in this connection today. If a farm is worth R400 000 to R500 000, an interest difference of 4% or 5% can mean a great deal to the farmer in his struggle to survive and to provide for his own needs.

I also want to make a plea on behalf of the deserving young farmers, because we are living in exceptional circumstances which make hereditary succession difficult for the older man. I think the hon member for Gordonia referred to this yesterday too. The burden of debt which is mounting up against the older farmer today, means that it is not easy for him to transfer hereditary succession to his younger son, because he still has to live as well and, as the hon member pointed out, he has to see to the needs of his other children.

I want to make a further plea by associating myself with the other hon members who asked for provision also to be made for the part-time farmer. There are a number of part-time farmers in my area who still take loving care of their farms, but also have a post in town, at the co-operative, in the Department of Agricultural Technical Services or wherever. We have to keep these people in the rural areas, and in that way perhaps we can also promote the family farm. If the part-time farmer has a post within reach of his farm, one must consider his case sympathetically even if he is farming a unit which is not quite economical. We have to help that man to remain established in the rural areas where his child can go to school, where he is a member of the church and where he is contributing to the population density.

Farming remains the backbone of the rural areas. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow the hon member for Beaufort West. I think we should consider his last statement, viz that we should support the part-time farmer who farms on a unit that is not entirely economical, with great circumspection, for we should really be careful about helping to keep uneconomic units going. The hon the Minister also made some reference to this, but I understand the problem and we are all concerned about what is happening in our rural areas. We in this party share the hon member’s concern about this.

†Red meat is by value the largest single agricultural product in the Republic of South Africa. In 1984-85 it represented 17,3% of the value of our agricultural production, whereas maize only represented 15,7%.

Red meat is, however, more than that. It is a valuable and important cultural asset in South Africa. For most of us, Black and White, red meat suggests prosperity, happiness and many other good things in this life.

And coronary artery disease!

The red meat industry, and in particular the beef industry, however, has had a very difficult few years. I agree with the hon member for Beaufort West that it has perhaps suffered more financial difficulties than most farming industries as a result of declining profits as well as, of course, the drought. This industry is in such a bad state that it has been assessed that any cattle farmer who has debts of more than 5% of his assets could experience cash flow problems. This means that a farmer with a farm worth R100 000 cannot afford to borrow more than R5 000. This is an indication of how serious the profit margin situation is for beef farmers.

Precisely because red meat is such a popular and nutritious form of food, we should make use of marketing. We read slogans like “Windsurfers do it standing up”, and there are various other versions of it, but we could have a slogan like “Beafeaters do it better”. We could emphasise that it is the most nutritious food which is available.

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether, for example, he suggested to the co-ordinating committee of our marketing board after the Chernobyl disaster that we should market South African food products as being from the Southern Hemisphere and free from Russian radiation. There was a cartoon in The Guardian in Britain a few days ago—this is not a paper which is particularly sympathetic to the South African Government—showing two people eating fruit and telling each other: “The only safe fruit is South African.” Now I believe that that is something which we can really pursue vigorously.

It has been proved in the USA that ground beef, or what we call mince meat, determines where people go to shop, because it is the most popular form of beef in the USA. In South Africa our equivalent is boerewors. We had a TV programme on it last night in Hit en Tuis, and I believe that the hon the Minister should encourage the meat industry and the Meat Board in particular to promote and encourage better and more boerewors to be sold. It has been found that if a butchery has a reputation for good boerewors, that alone draws a substantial clientele. The same applies to good boerewors in a supermarket butchery, because people will simply shop at that supermarket for their boerewors.

Now you are talking like a CP.

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he has done anything about easing health restrictions on the marketing of beef, because that is clearly an issue which has to be dealt with. Associated with that, is the reopening of some of the country abattoirs. At Cato Ridge, something like 70% of the buyers, are individual retail butchers while at City Deep it is just the other way round since 70% are wholesale buyers. The difficulty with stock sales in Natal today is that the only people who can really afford to buy the farmers’ cattle are speculators or feeders, because the country butcher who used to be an important factor in that market cannot buy cattle any more. The controlled abattoirs have squeezed him out. As a result of this, the farmer is now virtually forced to finish his cattle for abattoir despatch on his farm if he does not want to give another slice of the profit to a feeder or a speculator. I believe the hon the Minister should see to the opening of that market, and one of the important ways to do so is to encourage more country abattoirs.

I should also like to point out to the hon the Minister that at the Royal Show at Pietermaritzburg last week, the prize for the best Friesland on the show went to a Mr Ahmed Kadodia who is an Indian who owns a dairy farm and produces dairy cattle. It is important that our commercial agriculture should be open to all races. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he is going to open our agricultural colleges to all races, because he knows and I know that almost every single White farmer is dependent today on Black, Coloured and Indian foremen, section managers, stockmen or whatever. I believe we must have better educated people, and if they are good enough to get into those colleges, and if there is obviously place enough and they can compete to get in, we should open these colleges.

Now you are talking like a Prog.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister something about a controversial matter which I believe is in the national interest. Can he give this House the assurance that no prison labour is still being used on White farms? I know that until recently, if not still, in the Tulbagh district prison labour was still being used on some of the fruit farms there. I believe that that is something which we should get rid of, particularly now that influx control is being abolished and the hon the Minister has reintroduced housing assistance for farm labourers. I cannot believe that we need to employ prisoners on our farms any more. I accept that they are well employed and decently treated but I do not believe that this practice is in the interest of agriculture in South Africa. Particularly, Sir, as the hon member for Ceres is the chairman of the National Party agriculture study group, the matter should be cleared up.

Referring now to the question of farm labourers on our White farms, I venture to suggest that the hon the Minister should at least consider how facilities for those people could be improved. In relation to this I should like to make a few brief suggestions. I think, for instance, of soccer leagues. I think the hon the Minister should encourage one of his colleagues in the Cabinet, or even the local farmers’ associations in this regard and provide some sort of funding to make it possible for soccer leagues to be organised in farming areas, so that, for instance, a coach can be appointed and transport can be organised, if necessary. Something should really be done to facilitate this. There is an enormous interest in this field everywhere, and I believe it could mean a great deal to our farming communities.

Furthermore, Sir, I believe transport is very important. Many farm labourers want to go to town to do some shopping. They have to walk long distances. Somehow arrangements should be made—perhaps even by the local farmers’ associations—for a decent bus service two or three times a week, serving different areas, simply to give farm labourers an opportunity of getting to town.

Clinics, I believe, should be encouraged more openly. I also believe boarding schools are fundamentally important for our Black farm labourers. Many of us know that our farm labourers’ children have to go and board in the nearby location or township in the local towns in order to be able to attend high school. We know it is very difficult for them. More and more of our farm labourers’ children are going to be wanting a high school education. I welcome the fact that the subsidy on housing loans is about to be reintroduced. I believe that is important, too.

Since the hon the Minister is also in charge of boreholes, I should like to suggest to him that in the same way in which we can get assistance in respect of boreholes for stock watering purposes, I believe it would be of enormous help if those boreholes could be used for domestic purposes—if necessary, a special scheme—in order to provide clean water to all farm labourers. It would, I believe, also be beneficial to the health of those farm labourers. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North must excuse me for not reacting to his speech. He covered a very wide field in any case. He began with boerewors, and ended with farmworkers who had to get soccer leagues and people who had to be conveyed to the towns. It is not the Government’s task to do those things. The farmers do it themselves. To tell the truth, all those things and many more are managed by the Rural Foundation in co-operation with the farming associations. The hon member is welcome to come and see how all these things are really done in my area. We not only provide those farmworkers with transport to town, but they are taken to church on Sundays too. I shall say no more about what the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North said, however, since I have matters of my own which I should like to raise with the hon the Minister.

I should like to associate myself with various speakers who have expressed their thanks towards the hon the Minister and his officials. I should also like to convey my sincere thanks to the staff in the office of the hon the Minister for the work they do there. I must say the reception one gets in that office is one of the friendliest receptions one can hope for. We should like to express our appreciation for this. It really gratifies us.

Mr Chairman, when this Vote was discussed last year, our country was caught up in a drought which was described as the worst in human memory. We had a complete failure in the summer cereal districts for the third consecutive year. The whole country was caught in economic pincers. To make matters worse, interest rates rocketed as well. Hon members will remember the gloomy spirit that prevailed in this House at the time. Our hope for assistance was directed at the Government. That hope was not disappointed. The Government leaned over backwards to grant assistance as far as it was possible to do so. Apart from subsidies, there was drought aid. Drought aid loans for the period 1 April 1985 to 31 January 1986, cost the department the astronomical amount of R275,474 754 million. These loans were supplied at an interest rate of 8%. This made a large contribution to relieving the farmers’ burden. I said our hope was directed at the Government, but as is normally the case with farmers, our hope was directed at the following year. Unfortunately that came to nothing.

Although certain regions got good rains and delivered good harvests, there are regions in which the harvest varied from 40% of a normal harvest to a complete failure.

As has been mentioned here, the farmers’ debt burden amounts to R11,4 billion with an annual interest burden of R2,280 million. One wonders what has caused the immense economic burden agriculture is bearing. Reproaches and pointing fingers are common today. The accusation is made that land prices are too high. Perhaps that is a contributory factor for some farmers, but we must remember that many professional people invest in agricultural land to combat inflation. A farmer who wants to buy additional land has to compete with these people.

There is another accusation that sufficient financial planning is not done. I wonder how one must work out one’s financial budget and make it balance if the interest rates increase by 100% in 12 months.

In my opinion the greatest cause of this enormous debt burden is the drought with its associated crop failures, empty dams—in my constituency there are dams that are so dry that farmers were given only 20% of their water quotas—and high input costs. It is not a very big farmer whose input costs amount to R150 000 today. If he has three crop failures, he is in the red.

Speaking of input costs, I think there is a snake in the grass. The prices of parts are increasing daily. Prices of implements and machinery have rocketed. A farmer no longer buys a new tractor; he fixes his old one. I want to say, however, if a tractor is 12 years old, one can no longer get parts for it. They simply say it is an old model. It also happens that a certain part which comes in today is more expensive next week. What really alarms me is the fact that a clerk behind a counter can give one a discount of 50% on a part, not a part costing R10 or R12 or R20, but one costing more than R3 000. Surely if he has the power to give 50% discount, there must be a snake in the grass.

Our farmers have not lost hope, but they have their backs to the wall. They are making plans to save. It was a fine experience to visit a young married couple recently. The house had electricity, and I saw that some of the bulbs had been taken out. Only one was burning. When I asked them why this was the case, they said they were saving electricity; that one little light was enough for them.

Reserves which had been built up over the years and saved for one’s old age, have been depleted. Farmers who incorporated the livestock factor into their grain farming, sold that livestock to fulfil obligations. Many farmers came to a crossroads this year. The hour of truth had arrived for some and they had to see how their property was put to auction.

It is sad to have to tell someone that he can get no more assistance, and I do not think it is pleasant for the hon the Minister to do so.

The depopulation of the rural areas is a cause for grave concern. The results of this have been pointed out by various speakers, but what has not been mentioned is that an enormous security risk is involved. I believe it is much more expensive to re-establish regions than to assist people to remain there.

People in various centres are suggesting that agriculture will have to rely on market-related interest in future. Surely “subsidy” is not a dirty word! The Government subsidises many other schemes. Housing is only one form of subsidising. Is subsidising a dirty word only in connection with agriculture? We want to ask our hon Minister to come to our rescue in this connection and to put his foot down. [Interjections.]

I want to cover a completely different sphere briefly. During the 1983-84 financial year, almost 6 000 hectares of agricultural land which falls outside the jurisdiction of local authorities, was included in the territory of local authorities. The demographers now tell us that by the year 2000—that is in 14 years’ time—approximately 26 million Blacks will be living in the cities, as against the present 7,6 million.

Urbanisation has come to stay, and we must accept that as a fact. [Interjections.] We are not opposed to it, but can hon members imagine how much agricultural land will be needed to supply the needs of those Black cities? When one thinks that the number of people in the cities is going to increase from 7,6 million to 26 million, it means there will be 10 to 12 new Sowetos as it were. Those people must have land to live on.

It has been pointed out that we have only 10,6 million hectares of arable land in the country, of which only 4 million hectares is high potential land. We want to ask the hon the Minister today, therefore, to make provision in good time so that those who are moving into the cities are not settled on this high potential land. They must rather go and live in the Oppermansgronde in the area of my friend the hon member for Fauresmith! No, I am only joking. [Interjections.] I am very serious, however, when I say we must take preventive measures in good time so that the high potential land is not used to house people who are moving to the cities.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon member for Winburg; in the course of my speech I shall associate myself with some of the most important aspects he mentioned.

I should like to thank the hon the Minister, the head of department, the officials and the staff of the Agricultural Credit Board for the exceptional service they furnish to the farming community. It is a privilege to accompany voters to the hon the Minister’s office and that of the Agricultural Credit Board where I always experience only the highest degree of goodwill and willingness to assist.

The objectives of our agricultural policy are so to direct development in the agricultural sphere that production and related factors will be applied in such a way that agriculture will contribute to the optimal economic, constitutional and social development and stability of the Republic of South Africa and simultaneously contribute to the promotion of an economically sound farming community. It emerges clearly from this that agriculture has an exceptional contribution to make but this can only occur if it is enabled to do so by favourable economic conditions.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I draw your attention to the fact that a quorum is not present in the Committee?

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: I wish to draw your attention to the fact that two members of the CP have just walked out to ensure that there is not a quorum. [Interjections.]

Order! Would the Secretary please ascertain whether there is a quorum present in the Committee.

Mr Chairman, the vulnerability of agriculture in consequence of dependence on nature is clearly illustrated by the drought of the past few years which also had an adverse effect on the national economy. The total estimated burden of debt of farmers amounted to R10 376,4 million on 30 June 1985 and had risen to approximately R11 158 billion by December 1985. A disturbing fact is that debts to commercial banks, private persons and other financial institutions amounted to R3 498,9 million, R792 million and R1 000 million.

Interest payments are clearly the greatest single cost element in agriculture. Thorough analysis indicates that the increasing element of interest in farmers’ total cost structure rose from R323,3 million in 1980 to the astronomic amount of R1 698 billion in 1985.

As Vryburg experienced its worst drought of all time, I hope I shall be permitted to illustrate certain facts on it in the course of my speech. The average burden of debt per farming enterprise in the Molopo area ranges from R214 534 to R262 723 whereas gross farming income amounts to R128 509 and net farming income to R9 048. In consequence of poor agricultural conditions, depopulation of the area concerned has taken place and currently only 34% of farming units are physically occupied by White farmers. Short-term debt comprises 41,5% of the total debt burden per farming unit. The average burden of debt per farming undertaking in the Mafikeng district farmers’ union area increased by 28,2% to R486 449 over the past year. The ratio of assets to liabilities currently stands at 1,58 to 1.

Depopulation has taken its toll in this area as well. The occupation percentage for the areas Piet Plessis, Dirkiesrus, Gemsbok-vlakte and Vergelegen dropped from 60% in September 1984 to the current 40%.

Random sampling done among 16 farmers spread over the entire Vryburg district indicated that income tax assets averaged R238 169 and liabilities R234 325 in the 1981 tax year whereas assets amounted to R264 787 and liabilities to R543 187 in the 1985 tax year. Of interest, however, is the fact that the average assessed loss for income tax purposes amounted to R232 546. I have been informed that attorneys in this area have already lent an amount of R17 million to 223 farmers on behalf of their investment clients.

One of the most important conclusions to be drawn from these statistics is that the debt of the farmers concerned at commercial banks and private organisations comprises the greatest percentage of their debt and in consequence they are burdened with an interest obligation which drastically increases the total burden of debt. Short-term debt should be capable of readier conversion— even if the amount is large—to a long-term obligation at a lower interest rate.

Interest obligations remain one of the most serious problems experienced by the South African farmer. The Government cannot be expected to take steps to decrease interest rates artificially. This would increase the demand for credit and probably also the inflation rate and interest rates could possibly escalate again in the face of an excessive demand for credit. Nevertheless it should also be clear that a decrease in interest charges to the farmer could be the most important single contribution to improving his financial position and ability to recover. A possible solution is the consideration of granting subsidies on interest payments. My argument is that agriculture should be accorded a higher priority in the Budget and that economic justification not be regarded as a decisive factor in any State aid.

Individuals cannot be permitted to call in their investments merely because farmers cannot honour their interest obligations. Large-scale foreclosing on mortgages would be catastrophic, not only in my area, but in agriculture as a whole. In the long term one solution in relieving problems would be to permit farmers to invest capital tax-free for instance in the Land Bank in years of good yields. The advantages of this could hardly be over-estimated and I shall mention only a few. It would bring about a more constant cash flow in agriculture; more judicious expenditure on capital works and machinery would take place in years of prosperity. In a favourable year for agriculture, like 1982, as much as R721 million more was spent on the purchase of tractors, machinery, implements and fixed improvements than the average annual expenditure for the period 1974-80.

A more favourable cash flow in agriculture would prevent unnecessarily risky production decisions to fulfil short-term financial obligations. The agricultural sector would be encouraged to be more self-supporting financially and State aid would probably be less necessary in the long term. Finally, more funds could be made available to the Land Bank at fair interest rates.

There is no insurance against drought and the farmer must be enabled to provide against years of drought in some way or other. Farmers should be encouraged to invest money for difficult years and be discouraged from seeking maximum tax benefits by purchases in good years. An additional benefit would be that the inflation rate would be curbed by saving and limits on expenditure.

The departmental Directorate of Financial Assistance, however, made a gigantic contribution in aiding Vryburg farmers. There have been references in this debate to the short-term assistance the Government is supposedly not making available to fanners. In the relatively brief period from 1 April 1984 to 31 December 1985 512 production loans were granted amounting to R20 109 158 whereas only 41 applications were turned down. Over the same period 73 loans were granted totalling R7 447 489 for debt payments whereas only 98 applications for loans were refused. Over this period of 21 months applications for 10 types of loans were approved; these loans totalled R35.066 million.

I wish to appeal to the hon the Minister to request the Agricultural Credit Board to review applications which were refused and then to place emphasis on the recovery ability of each individual case and not so much on the value of collateral which can be offered.

I should like to know of the hon the Minister whether he would not be prepared to give an indication in his reply to the debate of the current position as regards representations submitted on the economic conditions of the Molopo border farmers and adjacent areas like the Du Plessis area.

I should now like to refer to the request— often directed at the Government—to announce a moratorium. Such a step would bring economic activity to a standstill in an area like Vryburg. It would create a lack of confidence between the various sectors of the economy because in effect it would mean that farmers were permitted no further credit purchases. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Vryburg yet again provided proof of the horrendous condition of agriculture in his area. We appreciate his appeal for an improvement of these conditions.

I should like to say I think the long-term plan announced by the hon the Minister is a very good one. It is clear to me that the hon the Minister worked hard to be able to present that plan here.

The debate we are currently conducting is the third on agriculture this year and, if we were to discuss only this long-term plan announced by the Minister today, we should find ourselves in the position of a doctor with a patient with a slashed artery who was bleeding to death. The doctor first examines the patient and deliberates. He examines the patient a second time and deliberates. He examines the patient for a third time and then says to him: “I have worked out a fine fitness programme for you which can make you the fittest man in the world.” [Interjections.] That patient is bleeding to death! I think the hon member for Parktown was a doctor of that type and that is why he is sitting here now. He was a heart specialist.

This patient, agriculture, is bleeding to death in the same way. What we require now to my mind is something to repair this patient’s arteries and he should have a blood transfusion so that he can get to that fantastic programme. To offer the long-term plan today to a farmer who is sinking and has been hanging on by his teeth for the past couple of years is actually of academic value only. This man first has to be saved so that he is actually able to get to that plan.

As we are in the process of our third discussion, I think the problems facing us have been very clearly identified by this time; we need no longer discuss them. That is why I wish to return to the sector in South African agriculture which is bleeding to death and it comprises the summer grain farmers in the Western part of the country.

We have already made certain recommendations which I wish to repeat briefly. There are some farmers who no longer have any collateral at all. Farmers in another category have been heavily burdened and the rest of them are all rapidly failing in their farming. We therefore accept that the Government will continue with normal measures such as production aid, subsidisation of interest and the six-year carry-over scheme. We also assume the hon the Minister will even extend this in some cases because the drought has continued for five years and an extension of the period of the six-year carry-over scheme should perhaps be considered.

We said previously that we estimated between 300 000 ha and 500 000 ha of land belonged to farmers with no remaining collateral. If all those farms or many of them came onto the market under compulsory auction, land prices would collapse completely. The market price and agricultural value is approximately the same in those western areas at present; it has already been forced down to that level. If a number of those farms were to come onto the market, the market price would plummet even to below the agricultural value. That is why drastic measures are required.

I wish to differ with the hon member for Vryburg. At the time the same argument was put forward as he is putting forward now. When the Agricultural Credit Act was passed and provision made for a moratorium, it was said no one would lend money to agriculture any longer. That did not happen. Consequently I wish to say I think this matter should be re-examined; special measures should be taken if necessary to place a moratorium on the repayment of those people’s debt even if this is made applicable to individual cases only.

At the same time I wish to tell the hon the Minister we appreciate his talking to financial institutions; it seems to have borne fruit. We are grateful to him for this and, if he can succeed in averting this disaster without a moratorium, it will be a good thing. If this does not happen, however, I think the possibility of a moratorium should be examined.

We also said that farmers who no longer had any credit lines should receive a 100% Government subsidy to get a minimum harvest of two tons into the ground. In this regard I wish to touch upon another matter which has now come to light in the Press. Sasol tendered to sell 8 000 tons of ammonia overseas. The newspaper report indicated that the net price they would receive after deduction of transport and storage costs would be R124 per ton.

Isn’t that a general affair? [Interjections.]

No, it is related to agricultural financing and I am about to make a proposal. The hon member need not be afraid; I am going to put a proposal to the hon the Minister.

Don’t become so angry.

The hon member should not take fright before we have even spoken. [Interjections.]

The net proceeds would have been R124 per ton whereas the South African farmer pays R704 per ton. What would have happened here, was that the foreign farmer would have been subsidised by the lifeblood of the South African farmer. As we have requested the hon the Minister to make the means of production available to farmers in this category, I wish to suggest that he purchase that fertiliser. That tender was not accepted as there were some even lower. The price of fertiliser has plunged in the world as there is no demand for it. They priced themselves out of the market and then it is said our farmers have priced us out of the market. It is not we who have priced ourselves out of the market; it is fertiliser companies and others who have priced themselves and our farmers out of the market. The hon the Minister should therefore purchase the fertiliser at the price at which Sasol was prepared to sell it. When farmers who are struggling come to the hon the Minister to request loans, he should give them that fertiliser.

How many tons are there?

There are 8 000 tons and according to my estimate that is adequate to supply that 300 000 ha to 500 000 ha with the minimum quantity of nitrogen to ensure a crop of two tons per hectare. I did not request a maximum harvest but a minimum one of two tons per hectare. Eight thousand tons of ammonia are sufficient to supply those requirements. Instead of giving those people a loan, the hon the Minister could give them the fertiliser. It is estimated that, including the costs of storage and at this price, the cost of that fertiliser was only R2,1 million. It may perhaps cost a further R1 million to convert it from its ammonia form into a bag of fertiliser. The department would therefore save a great deal because it would otherwise have to grant farmers a loan to pay R704 whereas the department could obtain it more cheaply.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

No, please sit down.

It is true that a commission has been appointed to inquire into this matter but I think the hon the Minister and his hon colleague could have called in Sasol already and told its members ammonia could be imported at R234 per ton. As Sasol has now linked itself to market-related prices, the price of its fertiliser should have decreased already. An inquiry into this is not necessary. I wish to ask the hon the Minister to discuss this with Sasol together with the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry; they can solve the problem in this way without the assistance of a commission of inquiry.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that South Africa is honestly longing for the Government to come forward with clear, downright actions. The entire country is yearning for Government action. This is the opportunity to take rapid and decisive steps which will appeal to the imagination of the people.

I now wish to put a very important question to the hon the Minister but, before doing so, I want to tell the hon the Minister I do not suspect him of what I am about to ask. I think his heart lies with the farmers but I cannot say the same of the Government. As a South African farmer, I want to ask the hon the Minister to tell us straight and honestly today whether he still wants White farmers in South Africa. I want him to give us a frank answer to that question. [Interjections.] No, I want the reply to that question.

The hon the Minister makes fine pronouncements with great dedication. When the State President receives a ram, he has beautiful words for agriculture but the Government’s deeds are damningly negative. There are no deeds in support of these splendid words; the deeds are the opposite. I have already said the Budget is negative; the agricultural priority is negative so the Government should tell us whether it still wants farmers in South Africa. The reason I am saying this … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon member for Lichtenburg as we hail from almost the same area. He raised a number of questions which one cannot allow to pass without comment. The first was that the Government supposedly did not appreciate the financial position of the farmer and that it did not view the farmer’s case sympathetically. I repudiate this and say it is not the case. The Government is expending great sympathy and attention on examining ways of assisting farmers to remain on their farms. On 30 May a meeting is to be held at Hartebeesfontein where the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke and the hon the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs are to address farmers and listen to their problems.

Will the hon member for Lichtenburg please listen to me now and stop looking at the man behind him. The question of the ammonia offered on the overseas market is a sore point; it is an irritating, niggling point. Nevertheless we also sell maize overseas at far below its production cost; it is far less than the price the domestic consumer pays for it. All our surplus …

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

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

We also sell our surpluses more cheaply. If an argument is to be made out for the fact that the Government can purchase this ammonia cheaply and make it available to farmers, it is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry and not one for this hon Minister. [Interjections.] Yes, those are the facts. That is how the State administration works.

Let us examine the position of farmers throughout the world. We are so inclined to think only the South African farmer finds himself in a financial dilemma. American farmers have to survive the greatest problem in their entire history without a drought. At a symposium in Pretoria Prof Bruce Bullock summarised it as follows:

This is therefore a worldwide farming problem only it is aggravated here as a result of the drought. It is a sad case to see farmers struggling and that some of them unfortunately have to leave their farms so I want to appeal today for additional measures to keep as many of these people as possible on their farms.

A study compiled by the University of Stellenbosch indicates that the joint influence of increased interest rates and the escalating prices of requirements have caused interest charges in most cases to represent the greatest single cost item in the farming industry today. If we analyse this, we realise that the subsidisation of interest by the State is justified, not only in the interests of the farmer but also of the consumer because it provides the consumer of this country with the opportunity of buying food at a price which is in many cases cheaper than its production cost.

We realise that a reasonable number of problems have cropped up recently which we have to address. There are certain people who invested unwisely or risked too much. That is true but those are not the only problems. Let us examine the lessons we have learnt and then take measures to permit these people to survive in spite of mistakes which were perhaps made. The economy is peculiar. If every one of us sitting here knew precisely what would happen in the economic sphere tomorrow, we should all have been multimillionaires. That is the crux of the matter.

How do we solve this problem? We should make more subsidies on interest available; the hon member for Vryburg has already referred to this. That is the only way people who belong in agriculture can survive, people who contributed well in the past and were once financially independent but who are now burdened with greater debts in consequence of drought year after year. These people should be assisted to remain in agriculture and this can only be done by making larger subsidies on interest available.

I analysed the interest of agricultural credit, the co-operatives, the Land Bank and commercial banks. After considering the recent decrease of 1% in the interest rate, I came to the conclusion that farmers still had to pay an average interest of 16% at the moment. I wish to cite the example of a man burdened with a debt of R500 000. This sounds like an astronomical amount but it is quite general today as it is accumulated over periods of four or five years. Someone with such a debt has to pay interest of R80 000 before he can pay off a cent on capital. This concerns me.

How are these people to be enabled ultimately to redeem capital as well—something which is essential? This can only happen if the State votes higher interest subsidies to assist these people. How it is to be done is a matter which should be solved round a table but it is in the interests of South Africa as a whole to do so. The entire economic structure of the country needs these people and, as employers, these people have to retain their liquidity on the farms and retain their employees.

Results would be catastrophic if large numbers of labourers were dismissed. We have to address the problem as it arises and then see whether we cannot obtain an additional amount from the State to make further interest subsidies possible. In the past the Jacobs Committee enabled people to survive with good results in consequence of concessions made by the Government. Nevertheless these measures remain inadequate and we require additional measures to assist these people who are essential to agriculture to remain there.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon member for Parys but he will pardon me for not replying to what he said as I have a specific problem in my constituency which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister.

We have a problem in the spreading of sesbania in the courses and riverbeds of the Gamtoos Valley. This is a South American legume which bears beautiful flowers and produces an enormous amount of seed. The plant is an exceptional threat to our alluvial flats and irrigation areas. Once again we have an excellent example here of an unknowing action which caused an area of our country to become contaminated with harmful plants which ultimately demand enormous amounts of money and trouble to bring them under control.

The problem arose approximately 25 years ago when officials of the Department of Water Affairs planted sesbania seedlings in their gardens for decoration at the time the Paul Sauer Dam was built. This is quite understandable because it is the dream of every enthusiastic but unenlightened gardener to have this beautiful, copiously flowering shrub in his garden. I was actually shocked to discover one day that my own wife had planted this shrub in her garden and it took all my powers of persuasion to convince her that she was playing with fire, and not without reason, because, since the construction of the Paul Sauer Dam 25 years ago, this shrub has invaded the entire valley from top to bottom. At present it is also invading tributaries of the river.

This brings me to the point on which I should like to fix the attention of the hon the Minister, which is the absolute ignorance existing in the community on noxious plants and their danger to the resources of our country in general. It is absolutely shocking. Most of these undesirable plants are spread from one region to another by people who are the distribution agents in their love of plants and gardens. It is stupefying to see how many of these noxious plants are to be found in our nurseries.

I know the department does a great deal by means of publications to bring the dangers to public attention but every person is selective in his reading habits and this information does not usually land in the right places. In the case of sesbania in the Gamtoos Valley, the first plant was established in the garden of the chief engineer of the construction crew which built the dam. In the case of jointed cactus, another plant which is a big headache to us, as far as can be substantiated, a missionary from overseas established the plant in his rockery. From there it spread over nearly the entire country so we should inform the broad public of these dangers. Where could we find a better method for this purpose than television?

Let us therefore use this medium to assist us in conveying the information to the broad spectrum of our community. I am thinking for instance of the television programme Prof Christo Pienaar presents regularly on the flora of our country. I am convinced that every plant lover and gardener watches that programme. I actually believe that, if we were to use someone like him to present such a programme, we should achieve far more success than we could ensure with every ordinary inspection campaign.

Mr Chairman, before you call me to order, I want us first to note who is actually responsible for what. The Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing directs itself chiefly at the control of weeds—which is of national importance to our agricultural resources—and the two identified are the jointed cactus and the tussock grass nasella. Why only these two? We appreciate that there are specific reasons for this because, if we want to launch meaningful inspection campaigns which will include all noxious weeds, the department cannot possibly have sufficient money and labour available for this.

Research on weed control falls under this hon Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply and we want to thank his department for the extensive research which is done on chemical and biological control. As regards the biological control of sesbania, research is done with a view to eradication by the weed laboratory of the Research Institute for Plant Protection at Uitenhage. This laboratory also does exceptional work on the biological control of jointed cactus and we thank them heartily for that. These people do very, very valuable work. They have an extensive breeding and distribution programme of various types of weevil which feed on the buds, seed and stems of the sesbania plant. They are bred in vast numbers and released in contaminated areas.

For the sake of the record, I should like to provide the names of the beetles concerned. There is the trichapion weevil which destroys the buds, the rhyssomatus weevil which destroys the seed and the neodipplogrammus weevil which penetrates the stems of older plants and so causes them to die.

Mr Chairman, I have been informed by the department that the insects mentioned have already been released in the valley. If they are as successful there as in other areas in which they have been released for instance, the plants should no longer produce seed in three or four years’ time. Unfortunately the problem does not end here. The important point is that we cannot wait for three to four years in that valley. If there should be a flood tomorrow—which is very possible and also probable—incalculable damage could be done to surrounding fields and orchards because at the moment the course of the river has been practically over-grown in parts by sesbania in particular but also by other plants. The result is that a blockage has been caused in the riverbed. One usually finds that in such cases flood water takes the easiest way through the neighbouring uncontaminated fields—obviously with catastrophic results.

Mechanical cleaning of the river may obviously not be undertaken by individuals as this has legal implications to landowners which may expose the farmer concerned to a suit for damages. To my mind the immediate priority is for the hon the Minister to request the Department of Water Affairs, as the responsible institution, to pay serious attention to the immediate mechanical removal of heaps of gravel and vegetation from the riverbed. If there are financial implications attached, they have a solution too. If we clean the river mechanically, it will enable the weevils to pursue their work of eradication undisturbed without their normal life cycle being interrupted by the use of chemical sprays. In any case the channelling of the river in certain places is of the utmost importance to the safety of occupants of the riverbanks and the hon Minister’s urgent attention to this would be greatly appreciated.

Mr Chairman, I am glad that the hon member for Humansdorp raised that matter. It is indeed a major problem, particularly in the East London district. I also want to mention another weed species, viz Lantana, which occurs everywhere in the East London and Komga areas.

†Having said that, Mr Chairman, I should like to tell the hon the Minister that the document which he presented to the House yesterday, and which he outlined during the course of his speech, contains all the necessary mechanics with which to place agriculture back on a sound footing. I should like to suggest—without wishing to take any shortcuts in this regard—that this document be made available to all farmers’ associations so that we will all be talking about the same thing, and so that we will all be aware of the depth to which the analysis and the planning aspect of the agricultural problems have been dealt with.

Having come as far as the planning aspect and having identified over and over again the same problems that have been identified by commissions down the years, one must obviously turn one’s mind to the aspect of implementation. It seems to me that we would need an entire debate to discuss exactly how we are going to go about implementing the necessary measures that are required.

I am concerned that the psychological moment for introducing new and drastic measures could be passing us by. The longer one waits, the more independent farmers become and the less easy it will be to implement these measures. Moreover, I think it must be said in respect of problems that we have identified in the past, that we have failed as far as the implementation of remedial measures are concerned. Who allowed the ploughing of marginal land? Who failed to implement the Soil Conservation Act? We must look at ourselves critically and find out why those measures, which were adequate in those times, were not in fact implemented. Who leads? Does the entrepreneur, through organised agriculture, lead, or does the department? I think the hon the Minister has spelt out very carefully what the State’s responsibility is in this regard, and I agree with him. I think the hon the Minister and his colleagues, the hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics and his deputy, are going to have to form a really tough group of Ministers, both inside the Cabinet and outside as far as the farmer is concerned.

I cannot help saying that agriculture has been a Cinderella portfolio and the time has come when those hon Ministers are really going to have to make themselves unpopular, both inside the Cabinet and possibly outside with farmers as well. I think they are going to have to be unpopular first in order to become popular with farmers later. I should like to suggest that the implementation of the measures that are deemed necessary, must start with the department. I think the maximisation of our resources and their best utilisation must start with an analysis of the department itself to see exactly what it has in the way of expertise and manpower, and whether these are being used in the best possible way.

I say this because I think there is one adjective one cannot apply to the Departments of Agriculture, and that is dynamic. They are all super chaps and in fact sometimes this is a problem because one feels that one is fighting a ball of cotton wool. To take just one example, when one considers what a shortage there is of extension officers and personnel out in the field, where I believe the implementation of these measures is going to have to take place on a very decentralised basis, and when one looks at the number of personnel at research institutions and in offfices, then I think one begins to realise that there is an imbalance in respect of well-trained, motivated people who have perhaps had the steam taken out of them by the implementation of the department’s policy of doing too much at that level and not enough out in the field.

I believe we have to break down the implementation of these measures very urgently into the smallest possible units within communities, if possible. I think a prerequisite for this is going to be the registration of farmers. I think when a person owns a piece of ground, he must automatically fall under the soil conservation requirements. That must go with straightforward ownership. It should thus become a requirement that such a person is liable to follow the soil conservation requirements as laid down. [Interjections.]

If he expects to receive financial help, the farmer must be prepared to register himself as a farmer who will participate in the management levels, schemes and requirements contained in this document. I am not saying that there should be no flexibility or variation in the implementation of the measures with regard to the degree of input by the communities. Some communities may perhaps be able to put them into action simply by means of a monitoring service by the department while others may need more assistance.

However, I think we shall have to get right down to the community level. We are going to have to place an onus on the farmer and tie him to it. In that way there will be a degree of compensation for the teeth, so to speak, which have been missing from the policies of the Department of Agriculture. The department will then acquire a new image as is evidenced by the hon the Minister’s speech in which he indicated that research would now have to be market-and economy-oriented. I think in order to convey that approach to the farmer, more officials and trained personnel will have to be in the field working with the farmer.

There is another matter to be considered which I also raised, I think, last year—the years go by so fast! In order to implement many of these schemes, the question of training and education naturally comes up. I want to appeal again to the hon the Minister to have a completely new look at our system of agricultural training. I am not saying that we should do away with existing institutions or anything like that; on the contrary, I have quite the reverse in mind. I think many of them, or certainly their capacity, should be expanded.

If we are going to have a new approach to farming, then we must also have a new approach to training. I believe that the semester system should be introduced at agricultural colleges coupled to modules which could be followed as correspondence courses. The kernel of these can be the short-course component. The young farmer particularly who does not gain admission to an agricultural college initially should be able to do some of those modules or part of a course in order through correspondence to qualify for admission the next time. We would thereby integrate both the short-course system which the farmer, who is perhaps uneducated or untrained, is doing and that which is taking place at the agricultural colleges. By way of the correspondence system a farmer will perhaps be able to do the theoretical part of a course in one semester and then attend the next semester. I do think we should take a completely new look at this matter and use this opportunity as a challenge; In the same way, that I believe farmers must look at the situation facing them as a challenge.

The situation regarding Blacks in the urban areas presents such an enormous challenge that I am sure if we could turn the clock back 30 or 40 years, all of us would approach the matter in an entirely different way. In the rural areas we are probably in the fortunate position of still having opportunities because the situation there is not as serious. I believe the points raised by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North were valid. We have to take a new look at our impact on our Black South African in the rural areas and on the farms. We have to consider ourselves as being fortunate in the sense that we do not as yet have the problems which face the urban areas. Therefore, we must seize that opportunity and improve the lot of our rural people economically and socially. I am not talking about hand-outs. I believe that is the worst thing that can be done in Africa. Any sort of hand-out has failed, and we must give them the means to help themselves. However, we must become far more aware and more vocal. This must become a part of the department’s credo and should be very much to the fore at agricultural congress level.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for King William’s Town will understand if I do not follow him, but allow me to congratulate the hon member on the substance of his speech.

*I should like to talk about something which is unique to South Africa, as unique as waterblommetjies and proteas, namely the rooibos tea industry, and also say something about the research and extension in this regard. [Interjections.]

In order to get to the research and extention, I should like to dwell for a moment on who and what the industry is, and give a little of its background. It is a small industry, about which little is known. The little we do know about it, is as a result of the publicity it got owing to a very unfortunate incident towards the end of 1984 when objections were made by overseas countries regarding salmonella contamination.

If we look to see where the industry now stands a little more than a year later, and particularly after this unfortunate incident, I want to tell hon members that at that stage there was already an imbalance in respect of production and consumption. In 1985 the cut back in production was 41,7%, but since 1969 it has been realised what the problems in the industry are, and what must be done about its research and extension. It was also realised that production could not simply continue, because the imbalance already existed. Consequently, in contrast with many other industries, this year the industry did not announce a price increase owing to its surplus position.

After this dilemma the delivery quotas were down by a further 25% which meant a total decrease of 56,3%. Although it was expected that sales would rise by 18% last year, in actual fact there was a drop of 17,7% in sales. In short an effort was made by means of controlled production to produce 3 million kilogrammes, with the sale of 2,6 million kilogrammes. This sounds well balanced, but one must remember that there is 10,3 million kilogrammes of rooibos tea in stock. As a result of this large supply a further restriction was introduced—down to 2 million kilogrammes which would have a value of 3,6 million kilogrammes for the package.

The producers adjusted to this unfortunate situation. The farm area decreased from 23 700 hectares to 18 500 hectares, with plantings of 884 hectares for replacement, instead of the usual 4 000 hectares. This product is produced from Paarl, through Wellington, up to Calvinia in the North west, with Clanwilliam as the headquarters of the industry.

The industry realises very well that the solution does not lie in restriction, but in sound market development, and along with this it lies in research into improved plant material, cultivation practices and extension, hand in hand with the department. All this is spelt out in detail in the 1984 report of the Rooibos Tea Control Board.

What was done after all this negative publicity? It is very important that the industry admitted at once that they had made a mistake. They said that they had a problem which they were going to do something about immediately. Hygiene was immediately improved, and in this regard the department again helped us a great deal. Stringent microbiological tests were carried out, and hon members will remember that an effort was made to clean the product by means of radiation. But hon members know that the public is antagonistic towards radiation. As a result the atmospheric steam sterilisation process, which costs 3,5 cents per kilogramme, was put into operation from April of this year.

Because this mistake was admitted, and action was taken immediately, the drop in the consumption was not that dramatic. The highest consumption in the country’s history was 3 000 tons. This dropped to 2 600 tons last year, but it is estimated that in 1987 there will again be an increase to 3 250 tons. The export figures are as follows: In 1977 only 74 tons were exported. This is an important market for the industry. Last year 140 tons were exported, which was more than during the previous year, and after this unfortunate incident what is more. During the past three months there has been an increase of 24% in sales.

What is rooibos tea? Of what use is it? Is it of value healthwise? Well, research has indicated that it has little tannin, is rich in minerals and, very importantly, does not contain any caffeine, and combats allergies.

It is better than red wine!

Order! The hon member for Worcester may not read a newspaper in the Committee.

Consequently it is extremely healthy to consume this product, almost like wine!

I want to tell hon members that the hon the Minister’s private secretary drinks rooibos tea and when one looks at her one realises that it does one good. Just think what it would do to the appearance of the hon member for Soutpansberg! [Interjections.]

Apart from this product’s value health-wise, it is alo inexpensive. As hon members know everything has doubled in price in the last five years, but the weighed average purchases price of rooibos tea was 130c in 1980 and today is stands at 180c. No other product can boast of such a low price to the public. It is an extremely fair price for that product. It is a healthy product and one of which we can be justly proud.

That is why I am now returning to research and extension. This product, as a matter of fact, this industry, deserves further research and extension, but on behalf of the industry I should like to say thank you very much in the first place to the Fruit and Fruit Technology Reseach Institute under Dr Piet Marais, which undertakes the research, and in the second place and in particular, to Dr Dawid Agenbach and his team for the extension which is undertaken hand in hand with the Rooibos Tea Control Board. May I say thank you on behalf of this industry, and may I also lodge an appeal for futher research and extension for this splendid, fine and unique industry in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Wellington. Not only is he my neighbour, but also one of my voters. I must inform hon members that I often visit the hon member for Wellington, but he has never offered me this product he spoke about. [Interjections.]

I gave you wine.

Since the hon member did not talk about wine in his speech, I want to say something about it. I just want to state my interests first. I had a good look at the list of speakers who have taken part in this debate thus far, and I discovered that all the speakers on our side of the Committee were either farmers or cheque-book farmers. I am the only member who …

Has cash. [Interjections.]

I really want to talk about a farm. It is the farm I have an interest in along with all the hon members in this Committee and all the other people in the country. It is the beautiful farm Groot Constantia.

At a meeting of the House of Assembly’s Select Committee on Public Accounts the other day, we looked very specifically at the accounts of the Groot Constantia Control Board. It was with concern that the Committee took cognisance of this control boards considerable accumulated loss of almost R5 million in its general capital fund, and the problem that this amount is increasing every year. This deficit has an interesting history.

Since what is done at Groot Constantia is in the interests of the country, it is clear that the situation must be considered seriously. I should therefore like to plead with the hon the Minister and his department this morning, to see whether they cannot do something about Groot Constantia’s financial problem. The fact is—I do not think anyone will differ from me on this—Groot Constantia is really the cradle of the South African wine industry. In view of that, I think one can consider this situation with an open mind.

I did a bit of research on the history of Groot Constantia, and it is extremely interesting.

In 1685 Commissioner Van Rheede gave the farm Constantia—not Groot Constantia—to Governor Simon van der Stel. We all know about the beautiful old house he built there and about the cellar that was erected there. The problem arose when the farm was subdivided into a number of smaller farms in 1712, after Simon van der Stel’s death. The homestead, cellar and surrounding vineyards became Groot Constantia. The other sections became Hoop op Constantia, Nova Constantia and Klein Constantia. The wine made on Groot Constantia has brought South Africa world renown as a wine-producing country, as we all know. It is interesting to know who Groot Constantias clients were. Do hon members realise that various French kings, Louis Philippe, for example were clients of Groot Constantia? Bismarck and Napoleon were clients of Groot Constantia too. I think there are few hon members in this Committee who are not clients of Groot Constantia today. [Interjections.] The distinguished quality of Constantia’s wines has ensured that this famous estate can rightly be regarded as the first to publicise South Africa’s name as a wine-producing country. That is the background and history of Groot Constantia.

Until 1975, Groot Constantia—which was even an experimental farm at one stage—was under the control of an advisory board of which the Director of the Viticultural and Oenological Research Institute was the chairman. In the production of their excellent wines during the past 20 or 30 years in particular, they have succeeded in restoring the great reputation Groot Constantia once had in wine-making in South Africa and abroad.

In 1975 the control of Groot Constantia was transferred to a control board by legislation of Parliament. The control board has been in control since then. It is important to point out that the estate is managed as an economically independent enterprise without any direct financial support from the Government. This control board has done a number of things during the past 10 years, however, which have placed Groot Constantia on the map once again, but which inevitably cost money.

I want to mention three such things. For the first time since the 17th century, they have succeeded in once again joining the farms which formed the original Constantia by purchasing the other farms and consolidating the area. I am talking about Hoop op Constantia, Nova Constantia and Colyn which were all part of the original farm. They even succeeded at the time in preventing a high density housing project which was to have been built on Hoop op Constantia. I think they made an enormous contribution to the preservation of Constantia’s environment as we know it by doing so.

In the second instance, this control board has replaced 330 000 grapevines in the past 10 years with new cultivars of very high quality. We also know that a beautiful cellar, which can handle 1 500 tons, was built. What is even more important, however, is that 200 000 visitors, of whom approximately 20% come from abroad, visit that cellar and the whole area annually.

The great development task at Groot Constantia has been completed, and the culture-historical aspects of the famous estate are now the special responsibility of the control board. The control board’s standpoint is that Groot Constantia’s wine was what made it famous and, although monuments and museums are extremely important, the farm should be financially independent and self-sufficient. The great development task has been concluded, therefore, but the cost that was incurred was really incurred on behalf of the Government.

All profits made on their wine sales on the farm today are ploughed back into the farm. The problem is merely that as a result of the control board’s great interest burden, it will never really be able to keep head above water unless the Government is prepared to remove its capital debt.

That is what I want to plead with the hon the Minister and his department to do. I want to ask them to consider removing the capital burden of approximately R5 million from the control board. In that way that farm, which is a national asset, a tourist attraction and one of the most beautiful things in the Western Cape, can be restored to its full glory.

The control board does wonderful work and people from the area have been appointed to it as well. They are considering giving representation in that control board to members of the board of the Cultural History Museum. All this is contributing to making Constantia the stately farm it was in Simon van der Stel’s time.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Paarl made a very interesting speech here this morning. The Groot Constantia Estate of which he spoke has played a very real part in the cultural and agricultural history of this country. It is comforting to know that this estate is in good hands and that its future prosperity is being safeguarded for the nation. On the other hand it is disturbing to hear that there are problems there but I am sure that the hon member’s pleas will fall on sympathetic ears and that these problems will soon be sorted out.

I would like to begin by responding to certain important aspects of the hon the Minister’s speech which he delivered yesterday. It was a significant speech because the hon the Minister dealt with a number of problems which have been responsible for undermining the wellbeing of agriculture in this country over the years. Furthermore, he spelt out certain policy directives in regard to the way he intends to overcome these problems. This puts us then in a position where we can engage with the hon the Minister in meaningful and constructive debate.

Order! Hon members must not converse so loudly.

Perhaps the most important feature of the hon the Minister’s speech involves his proposed National Financing Strategy. Few of us can argue with the objectives of this strategy which are to create an economically sound agricultural industry in order to promote the welfare of all South Africans. It is when one analyses the intended strategy that one starts to uncover a few serious difficulties.

The hon the Minister himself has identified nine problem areas which need to be addressed. These are crucial because they have a direct bearing on our financial position. This is where we come to the nub of the problem. The hon the Minister unfortunately does not have control over all nine of those problem areas. I fact, when one analyses the situation one finds that he has direct or partial control over probably only about four of them. For the rest we are very much in the hands of the hon the Minister of Finance and, to a lesser extent, the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry. It is for this reason that I believe it is imperative that the hon the Minister of Finance should take a much closer interest in these agricultural debates than he appears to do at present.

What the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply has done is to set out a very impressive long-term strategy, and we can associate ourselves with that strategy. It aims to restore economic prosperity to the industry. In this regard I wish to refer to a question which was raised by the hon members for Barberton and Lichtenburg who drew attention to the fact that we have a short-term problem. Farmers are faced with a financial crisis that needs to be addressed now. We would like the hon the Minister to spell out how he intends addressing this short-term problem.

The Government has in the past made generous relief funds available to farmers in trouble, but that is comparable to throwing a lifebelt to a drowning man. We need to do more than that. If we are to save him, we have to throw out good strong ropes and pull him to shore. In other words, we do not merely need actions which are palliative in their effect, but we have to try to get to the root cause of the problem in order to save those farmers who are still in a position to be saved financially. The longer we allow farmers to float about up to their chins in water, the fewer will recover when they are eventually brought ashore.

Has the hon the Minister any idea of how many farmers can still be rehabilitated? How many are in a position to benefit from help? What is the likelihood of the hon the Minister’s being able to squeeze sufficient funds out of the Treasury with which to mount a proper rescue operation for these farmers? I believe it is important for us to know the magnitude of the problem, particularly in the summer rainfall areas of the country, and whether it is at all practically possible for us to assist these farmers in their hour of need.

While I am on the subject of finance, I would like to support the hon the Minister’s contention that many farmers have no one but themselves to blame for their financial troubles. We accept that the Government cannot be expected to bail out people who have been guilty of irresponsible financial actions or who have gambled on their property. It is not on behalf of these farmers that we are appealing, but on behalf of the bona fide farmers who are in financial trouble because of circumstances beyond their control.

There are other aspects of the hon the Minister’s speech which, I am sure, will be dealt with by other hon members, but I would like to turn my attention to his longterm planning strategy and certain specific problems which arise from it.

Programme 4 in the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure concerns agricultural resource utilisation, and it has two major aims. The first is to evaluate the production potential of our agricultural resources, and the second is to exercise control over their use. This must surely form the heart of the hon the Minister’s long-term planning, and that is why I would like to spend some time on this programme. If our agricultural industry is to prosper, it is absolutely imperative that a balance be struck between the two ideals of resource utilisation and resource control. If the stress is allowed to fall on utilisation, farming systems could then rapidly turn into exploitative systems taking more out than is being put back in. This would be a one-way street to disaster. Farmers in the Dust Bowl of America earlier this century discovered that to their cost.

If, on the other hand, controls are of such a nature that they inhibit proper progress, farms could be turned into agricultural museums incapable of meeting demands made by our growing population for food and fibre.

The way in which this hon Minister succeeds in walking this tightrope between two competing needs will determine whether or not he makes a success of his portfolio. At the outset, let me say, that the signs are auspicious. The National Grazing Strategy launched by the hon the Minister last year, which is now getting under way throughout the country, is an excellent start.

This strategy seeks to redress this imbalance which has been created between excessive utilisation on the one hand and perhaps excessive control on the other. Therefore, it is a very necessary strategy which the hon the Minister has launched.

While I am dealing with this question, I want to raise certain other cases of excessive utilisation—exploitation even—which I believe merit urgent control. The first matter is a local one, and I am referring here to the destruction of the coastal bush in the Eastern Cape, particularly in the Nanaga-Kinkelbos—Alexandria area. Anyone who is familiar with that area will have watched with dismay as bulldozers have moved in and have bulldozed up hill and down dale, destroying everything in their path. These have been followed by tractors and ploughs which have ploughed with scant regard for contours, slopes or water courses …

Order! I regret to have to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

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

The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip for his courtesy.

The soil in that area is of a very light, sandy nature. It is held together by a thin layer of humus which has been built up over the centuries from the bush. If this land is put under annual agricultural crops, it will only be a matter of time before the structure of that soil breaks down completely and, in the near future we are going to be faced with an ecological disaster there unless something is done. My questions to the hon the Minister are the following: Why has this been allowed to happen? What is being done to stop it? What will be done to rehabilitate the soil of that area?

The second instance of area exploitation is far more important and is one which occurs on a national scale. It is also more complex and problematic. The reason for this is that to a large extent it falls outside of this hon Minister’s area of jurisdiction, but nonetheless, the hon the Minister is directly concerned with this. I refer to the exploitation of agricultural land by authorities unrelated to agriculture. I refer here specifically to municipalities, roads, railways and the like.

These are the main offenders, but it is particularly the municipalities with their ever-increasing need for land for housing and industrial complexes that bite deeply into our countryside. The prevailing attitude seems to be that because South Africa is a vast country there is lots of land for everyone and we need not really be worried about this particular problem. However, the loss of 5 000 or 10 000 ha of agricultural land every year to housing and development should, I believe, be regarded as anything but insignificant. Complacency in this regard is dangerous for two reasons. First of all, as we all know, South Africa is experiencing a population explosion. This population will again double within the next 25 years and there is an as yet unborn population which will be seeking residential land in the near future, and that land will have to be obtained at the direct cost of agriculture.

The second matter concerns the Government’s recent lifting of influx control measures. Although, of course, one welcomes this lifting it should be borne in mind that the process of urbanisation which is now likely to be accelerated is going to aggravate the shortage of land suitable for housing. More agricultural land will be required to accommodate the influx of people who will come into the urban areas. The result of this will be further significant demands by local authorities for land. It is obvious, Sir, that this land will have to be found somewhere. Therefore, I urge the hon the Minister to anticipate this demand. We know that one of the tasks of his department is to draw up a land-use map, but metropolitan planning does not come into this map.

When we look at the utilisation of farmland, that is one thing. I believe, however, that the hon the Minister and his department should have a greater input into the national land-use map, and I should like the hon the Minister to give us the assurance that the interests of agriculture will be taken sufficiently into consideration when metropolitan planning is undertaken. We appeal for a greater input by this hon Minister’s department into the whole process of planning.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister will, no doubt, have the opportunity of responding to these questions later today.

Mr Chairman, I assume the time for the debate on agricultural affairs has now more or less expired. The next speakers will therefore have to concentrate mainly on water affairs. I should now like to talk mainly to the hon the Minister about the Riet River State Water Scheme. Before I come to that, however, I should just like to air an idea regarding the waters of the Orange River.

The Orange River drains approximately 49% of South Africa’s surface. Despite such a large portion of the country’s surface being drained by the Orange River, only 22% of the run-off water flows down the Orange River. This emphasises the fact that the Orange River is the main source of water for a very large part of this country. It is the main source of water for almost half of South Africa. Bearing this in mind, it is important that when decisions are made regarding the waters of the Orange River, particularly as far as the supply of water to the PWV area is concerned, we should consider the matter with great circumspection.

The development potential of this large dry section of South Africa is very closely bound up with the waters of the Orange River. When we also consider that the Eastern Plateau forms only approximately 13% of the surface of South Africa and provides approximately 45% of the run-off water, I want to suggest that when more water has to be provided to the PWV area, in the future, we give strong consideration to using the water from that water-rich area of South Africa, and preferably keep the water from the Orange River in reserve for the large dry areas in the country.

However, what I should particularly like to discuss with the hon the Minister is the Riet River State Water settlement. That State settlement can be divided into two main parts. The first part is the settlement itself, which is also the larger part. In the foreseeable future water will be supplied to that area from the PK le Roux Dam. The settlement was planned in earlier years to comply with the requirements made for irrigation farmers at that time. It therefore does not provide the present requirements in regard to irrigation farmers. Therefore, a replanning of the settlement area of the Riet River Scheme is imperative.

The hon the Minister knows that the farmers’ association of the Riet River settlement has submitted a beautifully worked out plan to the department. My request is for it to give urgent attention to this matter now so that if the water reaches the settlement within a few months, this planning will already have been dealt with. It is essential for it to regard this matter as extremely urgent, and I should like to hear from the hon the Minister to what extent this submission by the Riet River Fanners’ Association has already received his attention and to what extent it has been finalised.

A second point is that it is of the utmost importance for these farmers to know exactly when the water from the Orange River will reach them. They are able to plant crops at an early stage with the little water at their disposal in the Kalkfontein Dam. If the hon the Minister could therefore let them know in good time exactly when the water from the Orange River will reach them, it would make a tremendous difference to all their farming plans.

A third point regarding this group of farmers is that with the arrival of the new water and the replanning of the settlement, considerable financial needs will also arise which will have to be satisfied if these people are asked to make the best use of the water. I am therefore pleased to hear form the hon the Minister what he has in mind in regard to providing for the financial needs of these farmers.

A second group of farmers involved in this State water scheme, are those that do not form part of the settlement. We ourselves call them the private farmers, from the dam as far as the settlement.

Land was listed in the years 1937-38, if I remember correctly, which according to present-day standards simply does not qualify as good irrigation land. The pressure on many of these farmers is that now the hon the Minister’s department has to give them the opportunity to have some of these unproductive irrigation lands unlisted in favour of land that his department must then make available and which is extremely good irrigation land. Such an action would mean that there would also be a large saving for the Department of Water Affairs.

According to White Paper WP D-86, it is planned that within the foreseeable future as much as R4 million will be spent on enlarging existing branch canals and a section of the main canal, and as much as R2,3 million will be spent on increasing the size of some of the siphons. My argument is that much of this expenditure could be avoided if the hon the Minister would allow irrigation directly along the large canal; if he would allow these farmers to have the unproductive land unlisted and obtain irrigation land directly along the large canal. I think this is consistent with the whole approach of the hon the Minister’s department that our farmers, particularly those that make use of the scarce natural resource, water, should be able to utilise it as productively as possible. My question now is: When does the hon the Minister expect us too be able to reach finality regarding this matter? He knows that submissions have already been made to his department by the farmers.

In this White Paper which I am holding in my hand it is mentioned that as early as 1987 a start will be made on enlarging this distribution network—the canal network. Before that time we have to reach finality in respect of the planning of the settlement on the one hand, but also in respect of the planning for the rest of this scheme.

I request that the hon the Minister give earnest attention to the matter. I would appreciate it if, if possible, the Minister could as early as today make a pronouncement on how far the planning of the settlement is from being finalised. Secondly, I would appreciate it if he could give us a direct indication of exactly when the water will reach the settlement. Thirdly, I should like to know how much progress has been made with the planning of that section of the State Water Scheme that does not fall under the settlement as such.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Fauresmith spoke with knowledge and authority about the constituency he represents, the region he comes from and in particular the significance of the Orange River—and of the Riet River Scheme, a scheme that is not unknown to me personally.

My participation in the discussion does not imply that someone that has received two cows as a present, but who does not have a little piece of land on which they can graze, is able to discuss agricultural affairs with authority! [Interjections.] However, I should very much like to take up the cudgels for the fanners of the Crocodile River State Water Scheme. The hon member for Fauresmith discussed water and if I now discuss it too, it does not mean that we have water on the brain, around the heart or on the knee! We just want to draw attention to the need for water and the problems being experienced in that connection.

The hon the Minister was friendly enough to say in an interim reply that the department was already engaged in an investigation into the possibility of a water quota subsidy for the farmers in the area of the Crocodile River State Water Scheme. I should like to thank him most sincerely for that. I do not want to add to his problems or to level criticism; I should simply like to submit representations to him. I accept that the investigation in that connection will necessarily take time, but I should still be grateful if we could be given an indication that a ruling in favour of our farmers will be given in the foreseeable future.

I think it may interest the Committee to hear some information in this connection. The area concerned is approximately 70 kilometres long. It covers approximately 55 546 hectares and there are approximately 17 000 hectares of high-potential, arable land. There are 129 landowners of whom 97— according to one source it is 98—man their farms on a fulltime basis. There is a White population of approximately 432. Fifty-two per cent of the farmers they find there have established themselves there over the past five year. They have therefore not yet put down very deep roots, but they have established themselves there as a result of the invitation by the Government for more people to settle there in the light of our defence setup, and so on. Forty-eight per cent of the farmers are less that 40 years old. They are therefore not worn-out old people—they still want to farm.

The crops that are grown there are mainly seed-maize, cotton, tobacco, vegetables, soya beans, peanuts and in the winter, mainly wheat. I shoul like to bring hon members’ attention to the wheat production. I feel the hon the Minister will have the information at his disposal, but I think this could interest other hon members of the Committee. In 1982, 38 338 tons of wheat was produced. In 1983 the production of the area fell back to 7 441 tons. In 1984, 8 862 were produced, and in 1985 it increased a little to 9 662 tons. The drop in production is mainly because there is too little water to obtain a full wheat harvest.

May I present a few problems in this connection to hon members? The one problem that is raised is that small amounts of water in a riverbed of 117 kilometres (I am not talking about the 70 kilometres that the area covers now)—are extremely difficult to regulate with pumps that were designed for full withdrawal.

Secondly, the amount of available water dropped from 53,3% of the full quota in 1982-83 to 19,4% of the full quota to date this year. In this regard water that is lost in the riverbed, is also taken into account.

Thirdly, in 1982-83 there was water for pratically the whole of the summer harvest, but when the harvest was at the peak of its growth stage, the water supply was exhausted and this resulted in heavy losses in the yield. I do not want to weary hon members with figures on debt burdens; I think the hon the Minister would prefer to escape for a while from a further figure on debt burdens. It is nevertheless interesting to note in this connection that approximately R27 million has been spent there on irrigation systems, mainly since the beginning of the drought conditions.

The total debt burden amounts to R20 351 000, which is taken from approximately half of the farmers that furnished their statements anonymously. The annual liabilities amount to R4,75 million. The total debt in arrears amounts to R5,5 million, and then the estimated value of the present summer crop is R2 840 000, and the estimated winter crop is approximately R600 000. These are figures that are supplied in the memorandum which was also passed on to the hon the Minister.

Attention is therefore directed to the fact that almost 90% of the farmers in the community would not be able to continue without State aid. I now conclude with the thought that the representations from our farmers are already with the department and I have only to underline this today by asking that the aid not be too little, too late.

Mr Chairman, I like to follow the hon member for Waterberg. He addressed very positive representations concerning his voters who have a water scheme in that region. Furthermore, he pointed out the importance of the harvest yield and how it varied according to the different times at which water was available. He referred, too, to the importance of water at the critical time at which harvesting can take place. Incidentally, he also referred to the debt in which the farmers of that scheme have landed themselves, which is actually the case with all water schemes.

I shall leave it at that, and I should like to return to another aspect that also concerns my constituency. Since the unprecedented droughts of the past few years—they are still continuing—took a heavy toll in the grain regions of the Republic, we have become even more aware of the importance of water. I want to add to that immediately that we in South Africa are also used to droughts and the consequent crop failures. It has always been accepted that South Africa is a country with a low and variable rainfall, and that in agriculture the rainfall is always the determining factor in the yield.

This has become more topical over the past few years, firstly because we have now experienced practically half a decade of particularly low rainfall which in turn has hit us harder because agriculture, as a result of the high input costs, has become more risky because the availability of water cannot be determined beforehand, but has become more uncertain than ever before.

Tremendous industrial development, with its large water requirements, plays a significant role in water consumption, and the position as regards availability of water for irrigation is becoming increasingly unsatisfactory. South Africa is known for its agricultural limitations as a result of variable rainfall, to which I have already referred. It is therefore very interesting to look at the findings of the President’s Council’s Science Committee, as issued in the report on demographic trends in South Africa. The committee quite rightly points out that if anything were ever to impede the development of a country, it would be a lack of water.

In its reference to the run-off of water it is said that 31% of the total rainfall in the world is carried to the sea by rivers, but in South Africa the figure is only 9%. The major reason for the low run-off is the high evaporation rate of surface water as well as surface restrictions in respect of the run-off of large areas. These run-off restrictions have been significantly increased over the past few years as a result of the low moisture content of the land, which could not be saturated by the present rainfall, and before saturation point is reached we cannot expect run-off water. I could add to this that although there have been good rains in many places over the past rainy season, there were very few downpours. As a result the run-off is even more limited.

When we talk about the run-off of water, we confine ourselves to the idea of run-off water that is available to storage dams. The total annual run-off from South African rivers amounts to approximately 52 000 000 000 cubic metres. The economically exploitable run-off amounts to approximately 34 000 000 000 cubic metres. This is according to the CSIR data for 1980. As a result of the surface evaporation of the storage dams and the variable nature of the rainfall pattern, only 31 000 000 000 cubic metres are available for use from the storage dams. Furthermore, groundwater provides approximately 1 100 000 000 cubic metres per year, which then gives us a total of 32 000 000 000 cubic metres. At present agriculture is responsible for 80% of the total annual water consumption.

Earlier in my speech I referred to the growing industries. With the growing in the Eastern Transvaal, water consumption for industry and urban development is increasing rapidly. Taking everything into account it is calculated that for ail purposes—this includes agriculture, industry, towns and cities—total water consumption will exceed the total available water by the year 2020. The greater demand for water for urban and industrial purposes is a result of the population growth and also of continuous urbanisation and industrialisation.

What I have referred to so far gives us an overview of the approximate expectations in “normal” years. The purpose of my speech is to draw attention to the prevailing conditions in agriculture; in other words, the prevailing conditions after certain areas have received good rains and other areas have not, and also after practically no run-off water has fallen in the Eastern Transvaal over the past season.

The drought has hit the farmers in my constituency terribly hard. As a result of the drought they have had a few successive crop failures, and this has caused grave financial problems. I am intensely concerned about the welfare of the farmers and I am convinced that hard work will have to be done over the next few years to find ways and means of keeping the farmers on their farms. Our farming community must not be allowed to collapse.

I should like to bring to the hon the Minister’s attention the situation of the irrigation farmers in the Groblersdal area, under the Loskop scheme. The Rooikraal Dam is situated in the Groblersdal district. At the moment it is empty and has no irrigation possibilities. Then there are the irrigation farmers at the Moos River. They are experiencing grave problems. There is the Loskop Dam which at the moment is less than 9% full and can for all practical purposes be regarded as empty. This means there is no water for planting a winter crop and secondly, that there will simply be no water for starting the summer crop. Everyone familiar with that irrigation area knows that one should not plant a crop unless one knows that irrigation water will be available to start the crop, and this after there has been no water to irrigate the previous four harvests really successfully.

I maintain that the Loskop Dam probably has the largest catchment area in the RSA. The catchment area extends in the east from Breyten, on the watershed via Bethal, to the west in the vicinity of Bronkhorstspruit. It is disturbing that in spite of the summer rains, the water level at the beginning of the summer has dwindled from 22% to less than 9% at present.

The future of the farmers in the Loskop area is in the balance, unless something drastic is done. All industrial development in the catchment area will have to be strictly controlled and the area should be able to obtain water from the Usutu-Vaal scheme. If this does not happen the Loskop Dam will never again be full for agricultural use.

I want to ask the hon the Minister for something to be done, and to see whether it would not be possible to make water from the Usutu-Vaal scheme available to farmers. I know this is expensive water and that farming does not justify these costs, but in the light of the financial dilemma in which the farmers find themselves, I am pleading for subsidisation, and I want to agree with a previous hon member that we should not regard subsidisation as a swearword where water is not available. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I like following up on what the hon member for Middelburg has said and I have the utmost sympathy with his Loskop farmers. I just want to tell him that an Englishman once said: “Here we suffer grief and pain, maar anderkant die bult is all the same.” It seems to me there is trouble all over the country. [Interjections.] This matter will resolve itself; we farmers just have to keep our heads and be tenacious.

One thing is very certain, and that is that the Breede River Valley has very bright and wonderful prospects if the benefits it offers are exploited to the full. Why am I saying this? I am saying this, firstly, because it is an area that has been blessed with an adequate and sure source of water. The Breede River is not simply a little stream. It has 4% of the total quantity of run-off water in the Republic. It does not flow in fits and starts, as do the inland rivers. It just goes on flowing in a foaming torrent—raging as a young man does! [Interjections.] I am not the one who says so; the Department of Water Affairs says so. It is the largest unexploited source of water and has tremendous potential. If hon members want to take off a little time next Saturday to go to Worcester to see what a wine and food festival looks like, they can judge for themselves. The hon members are becoming altogether stale here in Cape Town and should get out a bit and come to Worcester. [Interjections.]

Secondly I say this because there is adequate, suitable, good land and trained manpower with which to create, with the help of the Department of Agriculture and Water Affairs, an agricultural showpiece to boast about.

Thirdly, there is an settled, stable population—not people who move from pillar to post—comprising 1% of the South African population. One does not find them just anywhere. I think there are only one or two of our calibre on this side; there is myself and Piet. We are people of calibre! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member should refer to hon members in terms of their constituencies.

Yes, the hon member for Mossel Bay is also all right! [Interjections.]

As in practically all areas of the country, the country’s present overall problems are present in our valley, too. There are problems such as a shortage of money—I do not want even to mention these things, because one hears about them every day—increases in input costs, etc. We have all that. Things are no worse than in other places, but we simply accept them in a better spirit and do not keep complaining. My father always said if one did not have clothes to wear one compensate by the added dignity of one’s bearing. [Interjections.] We are not exactly better, but we shall undoubtedly see that the problems are resolved. I can assure this Committee that we are not going to stand by idly. [Interjections.]

The region as a whole has a tremendous advantage, particularly as far as agriculture is concerned, and this is that the high-rainfall areas in the west and the north west are situated in the highest mountain ranges in the valley. We are not simply on flat land here. Moreover, the total number of suitable dam sites is adequate and situated at a height. The combination of water and dam sites on a high level makes it possible with the aid of gravitational force, to provide practically the whole area with reticulated water, which is a very great and valuable asset for us.

The Creator put these high-lying sites there and He does this only once. Now I feel it is essential that these sites not be spoilt by roads, mountain passes and railway lines. One can always move roads and so on, but never a dam site. The Good Lord said in the Bible that one should leave these things exactly as they are!

An example of a threatened site is the high-lying Mitchells Pass dam site which is reserved to serve the belt south of the Langeberg between the pass and Montagu with reticulated water. This site is being gravely threatened at present. The proposed outline of the rebuilt pass will more or less follow the present outline and will not, therefore, fit in with the long-term planning which was conveyed in written form to all the departments concerned years ago.

Over the past few years sharp cost increases such as increases in energy costs have caused grave crises. I actually want to discuss the increase in pumping costs. The increase in pumping costs has not only affected all the irrigation farmers; it has even broken several of them. [Interjections.] It was almost the end. Had I not had money stashed away I too, would have been “in my moer” (would have had it)! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must withdraw that last word.

I withdraw it, but I … [Interjections.]

The State’s awarding of high-lying water resources in the Du Toitskloof to the greater Cape Town area was a huge percentage worth millions of rand to Cape Town as well as to the Treasury. Thanks to the tunnel the water runs freely from the mountain over a distance of 100 km to Table Mountain and smaller feed-systems which are cheaper to provide. Which farmer would not give his eyeteeth for such a benefit? In my opinion all farmers will do this. The State grants this bonanza to Cape Town and we as the inhabitants are not too annoyed about it, although we do not feel completely happy about it.

Would it not be in any way reasonable to offer the same benefit to the valley as well? If the answer is no, that could probably be justifiably regarded as a low blow.

With view to utilising not less than the full benefit of the gravitational energy, the Department of Water Affairs drew plans in the sixties for dams and feeder channels, which succeeded in their objectives. The United Breë River Development Association has co-operated over the years in working on the proposals and even effecting improvements.

Now, however, there is a fly in the ointment. The late Dr Nak van der Merwe, as Minister of Water Affairs, announced that the valley would have pumped schemes for at least the next 30 years. Such an approach might have been successful on the plains of the eastern Free State and Jacobsdal, but such a plan would not work so well in the Breë River valley with its tributaries and sloping land.

This view is supported by three pumped schemes that were introduced there. The first, a medium-sized scheme at Bossieveld, was built when the rand still had the same value as the dollar. The scheme is encountering problems today. The small scheme behind Kliphoogte has never, since it was begun, been able to make repayments. The latest scheme at Cogmanskloof has also become bogged down, particularly in the high-lying parts of the irrigation area. I think it, too, is becoming paralysed.

Order! I regret to inform hon member that his time has expired.

But I have not finished yet, Sir! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it was quite enjoyable to listen to the hon member for Worcester who pleaded for his constituency in his very humorous way and drew our attention to the beauty of those valleys.

I do not agree with a Prog easily, but I want to agree with the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North with regard to what he said about boerewors this morning. During an agricultural debate in 1978, I pleaded that 95% of boerewors should consist of meat. The Minister of Agriculture at the time, who is a maize farmer, seemed satisfied to have bran and all kinds of other things in the sausage. He did not want to accept my proposal, but I am grateful that the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development is in the Committee today, and that he has announced the new regulations so that more meat will now be stuffed into the casing so that the consumer can get a delicious product. We are very grateful for that.

The hon member for Lichtenburg made a very practical suggestion to the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply this morning. I believe that as a practical farmer, he will consider it very favourably. The hon member suggested what the hon the Minister should do with the 800 000 tons of ammonia which Sasol is offering …

8 000 tons!

I hope the hon the Minister will accept the hon member’s suggestion in connection with these 8 000 tons of fertiliser which Sasol is offering the outside world at a very cheap price, despite the plea the hon member for Parys made here today. He said it was a task for the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. If a member of the NP had made that proposal, the hon member for Parys would have said it was a practical one. When the CP proposes something in the interests of the farmers of South Africa, the hon member feels compelled to ridicule it. [Interjections.] I do want to ask the hon the Minister—he is a practical farmer—to implement this fine practical proposal, because it can save the farmers of South Africa a great deal.

The hon member for Lichtenburg also asked the hon the Minister whether the Government still wants the farmers in South Africa. What I now want to tell and ask the hon the Minister, I am telling and asking him because we have confidence in him as the Minister in the White House who is responsible for agriculture.

During the debate about his Vote, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said the constitutional policy had now been changed because of farmers’ resistence to making land available for the implementation of that policy. One can conclude that one of the most important reasons for this is the fact that the NP changed their point of view as a result of the resistance to the acquisition of agricultural land.

A number of hon members on the Government side requested a radical redistribution of land. The hon member for Innesdal used the term “a radical redistribution of land”. More than 90% of the land in White possession belongs to the farmers of South Africa and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning did not reprimand or repudiate the hon member for Innesdal when he spoke about this radical redistribution. In fact, the hon the Minister is a supporter of the redistribution of wealth himself.

Order! I am listening very attentively to the hon member for Kuruman. He must not conduct a constitutional debate during the discussion of this Vote. That is not the responsibility of this hon Minister.

Mr Chairman, I am talking to the hon the Minister of Agriculture who controls and represents the White farmers of South Africa. More than 90% of the White land in South Africa falls under his jurisdiction, and I am talking to him.

Order! The hon member may proceed, but I am not going to permit a constitutional debate.

The title deeds to their farms are part of the wealth of the White farmers of South Africa, even if there is a Land Bank or an agricultural credit loan against those deeds. There is deep anxiety among the fanners of South Africa with reference to these statements made by members of Parliament. We want the hon the Minister to eliminate this anxiety today, because farmers are wondering whether the Government is not deliberately trying to force farmers in certain regions to their knees by forcing the land prices down so that cheaper land can eventually be obtained by the Government in order to bring about the ideal of a radical redistribution of land. [Interjections.] Hon members of the NP must not make a noise since I should like this lack of clarity to be eliminated. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister can do this for us today.

The hon the Minister can eliminate that lack of clarity, and I want to plead with him to do so. [Interjections.] It is interesting that the people making the most noise are the supporters of the radical redistribution of land, the “New Nats”. I should like the hon the Minister to settle this matter today. The hon the Minister can eliminate this anxiety totally today and I want to ask him to do so since we know he, as a farmer in heart and soul, will not be in favour of this. I want to ask the hon the Minister to resist any efforts to establish a radical redistribution of land on behalf of the White farmers of South Africa.

If the hon the Minister says today he will resist, we thank him, since he will be removing great anxiety from the hearts of the White farmers of South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon member Dr Vilonel is not worried about that. He is one of the supporters of the radical redistribution of land in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

No, unfortunately I have no time.

The Kalahari farmers have been conducting an inquiry since 1975 to obtain joint stock-watering places. On 7 April 1979, during the discussion of the Agriculture Vote in the House of Assembly, I made a plea that when the projects for water supply to the Kalahari were considered, the Vaal-Gamagara Scheme would also be considered as a possible source of water supply to the Kalahari farmers. The hon the Minister, then still the Deputy Minister, played a leading role in supplying water to the Kalahari. The Kalahari-West stock-watering project announced by the Minister in 1979 which is a practical reality now, attests to good team-work between organised agriculture, the farmers involved, the department and the Minister. I should like to pay tribute to this, as well as to the contribution made in this connection by the hon member for Gordonia’s predecessor. The fact that it is a practical reality is a sign of team-work.

Water is very difficult to obtain in the Kalahari because groundwater is very deep. Millions of rands have been pushed into dry boreholes by Kalahari farmers in their search for water for their animals. Farms in that vast area are being abandoned at the moment. Only 60% of the farms in the Northern Kalahari area are occupied at the moment. In the Central Kalahari 76% of the farms are occupied, of which 62% of the farmers in the Gordonia area and 84% of the farmers in the Kuruman and Postmasburg areas are still on their farms. Those farmers are very far away from their schools, their churches and their business districts. They have to make use of poor roads which are difficult to negotiate. It is very important to keep those farmers on their farms.

In speaking about this, I also want to request the hon the Minister today to give serious consideration to identifying the whole border area of the Kalahari and the Molopo—that area that borders Botswana—as a designated areas to that the farmers there can also make use of those benefits. A very important contribution to keeping those farmers on their farms can be made by ensuring that a stock-watering scheme similar to the Kalahari West stock-watering scheme is provided for the farmers in the Eastern Kalahari as well.

Organised agriculture has made pleas through the hon member for Gordonia and other through the years. We suggested that the Vaal-Gamagara Water Scheme, which takes water from the Vaal River to Sishen and Hotazel, be extended up to the Koranna mountains, from whence the water can then be led to make stock-watering places available in the Kalahari. I therefore want to request the hon the Minister today to grant assistance in a very sympathetic way when the representations are made to him and decisions are taken to assist the farmers there. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, while looking at the clock during this water debate, I was reminded of the tale Langenhoven told about his grandfather, Gert van Zyl. One day, it seemed, he was sitting at the bottom end of a water furrow watching all the other peolple taking their turn to use water before him, while some were even stealing water to boot. When that happened, the old man used to walk up along the furrow in the hot sun, hunched forward with his shovel over his shoulder, until he found the person who was stealing his water. One day, when someone saw the angry old man approaching with his shovel, he beat a hasty retreat while stuttering: “Oom, see how nicely the thunderclouds are gathering.” The old man’s answer was short and sweet: “I have not come to receive my water from heaven; I want my water in the furrow.” [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, it is a fact that we farmers also want our water in furrows.

Before I go any further, however, I should first like to refer to the hon member for Kuruman. I want to tell the hon member for Kuruman in all modesty …

And you are so modest, are you not?

Quite correct! [Interjections.]

Yes, and you have so much to be modest about! [Interjections.]

Order!

During the years in which I have been in Parliament, I have always maintained close and intimate contanct with agriculture in South Africa. All the farmers in my area get in touch with me when they encounter agricultural problems. I am a farmer myself and therefore I am one of them. I am still discharging my obligations to the farmers under extremely difficult circumstances. I therefore want to tell the hon member for Kuruman that if he had followed the same course as I had, he would have learnt one truth, namely that this Government, more than any other Government that has been in power in this country, has always endeavoured to keep the farmers of South Africa on their farms. Of course the hon member need not believe me. The chairman of the Financial Assistance Board is sitting there in the officials’ bay. The hon member can go and ask him how much money the Government places at the disposal of agriculture in South Africa. Why would the Government spend so much money on the farmers of the country if it was not interested in keeping the farmers on their farms? It is very simple, Sir. I therefore ask the hon member for Kuruman whether it is not possible for him to keep politics out of an agricultural debate.

Our problem is that we trust the hon the Minister, but we do not trust Barend! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, coming back to water now I want to state one irrefutable fact, namely that there is not enough water in the whole world to quench the fires which are started when it comes to the distribution of water. No matter how difficult and complicated the problems concerning the distribution of water may be, it is the duty of every country—especially a country which has as little water as ours—to face up to these problems. Our Government did that. That is why the Raubenheimer Committee was appointed which published its report last year. We are looking forward eagerly to reading that report.

Last year, however, certain articles appeared in the Financial Mail about the development of water resources and the future water needs of the country. That of course is an indication to us of what is in all probably contained in the Raubenheimer report. One of the points emphasised here is the way in which we in Southern Africa are completely interdependent on one another.

Mr Chairman, judging by the sounds you heard when you put the question just now, you may assume that the hon members had a good lunch this Friday afternoon.

Hear, hear!

Before business was interrupted, I was speaking about the problems in connection with the water supply in South Africa. Basically these problems revolve around the fact that 58% of the industrial, 77% of the mining and 48% of the agriculture activities are concentrated in the PWV area. At the same time 90% of the generation of electricity in South Africa is also concentrated along the upper reaches of the Vaal River which makes very heavy demands on the water supply.

At this stage the water supply from sources above the Vaal Dam is almost equal to the water requirements above the Vaal Dam in normal years. This is of particular importance to us farmers because, as we have found over the past years, the slightest drought creates an emergency which leads to water rationing. With regard to the utilisation of the Vaal River resources, we are very close to a situation which certain farmers often experience, which is the slightest drought immediately places them in an emergency grazing situation as a result of the overutilisation of the resources.

For those of us who farm in the Vaal and Orange River basins, this tremendous demand for water from the Vaal River resources, which is increasing so drastically, is therefore of tremendous importance because, as I have already said, the safety margin between ourselves and water restrictions is very narrow indeed.

The only method of overcoming this problem of the limited water supply from the Vaal River, is to transfer water from other areas to the Vaal River. This is already being done. At present 370 million cubic metres of water is being transferred annually from the Tugela system to the Vaal system. [Interjections.]

Yes, we know. You also get it free of charge!

Because more and more water is used for the industries and the mines, as well as for the generation of electricity, we are now faced with the problem that water for farming requirements is much lower on the priority list.

As a result of the fact that water is now being transferred from other areas to the Vaal basin, and the fact that much of the water used by industries and households is not consumed, means that, a certain amount of water intended for these areas, is made available after use for agriculture purposes. This is happening at a stage where the percentage of recycled water in the water consumed, amounts to between 30% and 45% of the total volume of the water required. Our problem is the following: What happens to the water that is recycled and made available to agriculture? Where does this water go? This afternoon I want to submit a plea in this connection to the hon the Minister.

As I pointed out earlier, a major problem has arisen concerning the needs of the farmers in the Orange and Vaal areas as a result of water being abstracted from this source. I am now afraid that this water which is reclaimed and used for agricultural purposes, might be transferred to another catchment area for agricultural purposes. What I am therefore saying is that a decision might be taken that the water released for agriculture from the PWV area, water from the Vaal or water that was transferred to the Vaal basin, could for example be transferred to the Crocodile River basin.

The question that arises now is whether it is not fair that before water is transferred to another catchment area for agricultural purposes it should first be put back into the Vaal/Orange River system so that farmers are once more in the position they were in before they encountered problems with the tremendously heavy demand for water by the industries. I think there are fairly good grounds for this statement of mine. In this regard I want to refer hon members to the standpoint of the Select Committee on the subject of the Water Bill of 1956. I should like to quote what they said:

My submission is that in all fairness water should not be transferred from the Vaal River basin to the Crocodile River basin before the farmers in the Vaal/Orange River area are once again placed in the position in which they were before the heavy demand for water from their available sources arose as a result of the needs of commerce, industry and the generation of electricity.

Mr Chairman, this is one of the few debates in this House in which the opposition parties get almost as much time as they like and this is one of the reasons why I am speaking again.

I should firstly like to highlight one of the problems we in this party encounter. I can do this by referring to a speech which my colleague the hon member for Bezuidenhout made yesterday, and by quoting from an article by John Scott which appeared in this morning’s Cape Times. [Interjections.] With all due respect to John Scott—he is not here today—I do not think he is regarded as an authority in this regard but he does succeed in highlighting one of the problems which we have. I quote:

[Interjections.] One of the problems we have on this side of the Committee is deciding what is actually an own affair and what is a general affair.

I can also illustrate this by referring to the hon the Minister’s Budget. I look at plant production promotion, for example. Among other things, this involves a research into the improvement and development of new production potentials with specific crops. We have really stretched our imagination but it is hard to see how this can be an own affair. [Interjections.] I am not saying that it is not important that this should be done, or that the hon the Minister and his department are not doing a good job in that regard. All I am trying to illustrate, is that we find it hard to see why this should be an own affair. The same goes for animal production promotion.

To change the subject a little and perhaps get back to more serious things on the hon the Minister’s portfolio, there are a couple of issues to which I should like to react very briefly. One of these issues which the hon the Minister highlighted on a few occasions during the course of his speech yesterday was the future research requirements in his department which will have to be seen to. There is, for example, land use capabilities. Attention is being given to this and, obviously, the quicker completed, the better. There is also great need for more economic research and it is also necessary to look into the questions and problems of rural development.

At the Universities of Stellenbosch, Natal, the Orange Free State and Pretoria there are excellent departments of agriculture and of agricultural economics. I should like to suggest to the hon the Minister that perhaps a lot more of this research could be farmed out to these universities on a contract basis. I know that the hon the Minister seconds people to do specific research there but I think this would be another way of accomplishing the task, especially in view of his limited manpower resources.

The other issue to which I should like to refer is the establishment of a data bank. I really think this is one of the most important things which can be done because information obtained from a data bank in terms of which one can forecast plantings and expected marketings will enable farmers to make far more rational production decisions. That is vitally important. We must realise that if we ever reach the stage in this country where we establish a futures market, it cannot work without some forecasting procedure of expected planting, expected yields and expected marketing. That would be an integral part of a futures market—if we ever establish one in the future.

One other issue which has come up repeatedly, which I would also like to mention although so many hon members have already mentioned it today, is the question of young farmers getting established in agriculture. The main reason why they cannot do this is because of the big difference—as has been pointed out by many hon members—between the production value of the land and the current market value which they have to pay. The only solution really is to align these values. Either one has to increase the production value—and the only way of doing that is by pushing up prices of products—or the market value of land has to come down. Unless we can do this it is actually never going to be possible for young fanners, unless they have substantial means behind them, to get started easily in farming.

The hon member for Lichtenburg said that the hon the Minister’s plan was mainly longterm oriented and he asked what we were going to do in the short term. In this regard I would like to suggest three things which I think should be done which would help this whole problem. The first one—which the hon the Minister recognises himself in his speech—is to abolish the one-channel, fixed-price schemes. Let us get on with something which is, let us say, a floor-price scheme, with the floor prices set somewhere just below the long-term equilibrium. This is a research project which could be done and which would be important. Once one has fixed prices, and prices are based on production cost, this guarantees a certain profit which gets capitalised in the land values and the whole spiral goes on.

The second suggestion, which the hon the Minister also mentions, is to restructure the tax system. There are many taxes that encourage people to invest in land because they get favourable benefits. Businessmen buy land and they do not buy it with the intention of actually farming. The write-off provisions are of great advantage. I think we have to accept that, in the short term, some farmers are going to go broke. Nobody like this to happen, but it has already happened to thousands of businessmen around the contry. If in the process, however, land prices go down, I do not think there will be any lack of people who are willing to buy farms and farm them profitably as long as the land prices are realistic.

The last thing I would like to mention very briefly is rural development. It is not really part of the hon the Minister’s portfolio, but obviously the welfare of rural communities is important. They depend on the agricultural sector and there are many industries which should be in rural areas which are not there. We can think, for example, of feedlotting, the many feedlots that should be in maize production areas. Abattoirs are also not in the rural areas. Grain mills, maize mills and flour mills are not in the production areas. We can look at feed processing, feed manufacturing plants and large centralised sugar mills which are not in the production areas where rationally one would expect them to be. Why is this not the case? There are possibly a number of reasons, but the one reason which I would like the hon the Minister to think about is that if producers and consumers of, let us say, maize products had to pay the full transport costs on their product, then we would not find maize mills and feed industries being set up down here in the Cape. If they had to pay the full transport cost those would have actually been established in the production areas, where they should be.

What about the monopoly of the millers?

Well, it is the transport costs that have enabled the millers to concentrate on big central mills. Because of the same price throughout for delivered maize there is no advantage or location advantage in having a small mill in a given area. That helps the millers build up that monopoly. Exactly the same thing happened in the sugar industry and then we had the Rorich Commission recommendations. Immediately the sugar farmers started paying full transport costs, many of the outlying production areas had to cease producing sugar because those small mills that were in the outlying areas in the past had been closed down in favour of the big centralised mills because of the equalisation in the transport costs. Perhaps the hon the Minister can look at this situation. Where farmers often think that subsidised transport costs have helped them—but in the long run this has caused industries to move from rural areas to urban areas.

Mr Chairman, this has been a very long debate, and I think hon members will concede that it will be impossible for me to reply to each member individually. Thirty-four hon members, I think, contributed to the debate; and may I say, at this stage, that this was a most stimulating debate.

*The time allocated for the discussion of agricultural matters should, in the first instance, be an indication to hon members of the importance of agriculture. Secondly, the fact that the governing party has made so much time available for the debate is an indication of the high priority given to agriculture by the Government. If hon members were to compare the time set aside for the agriculture debate with the times set aside for other Votes, they would see that this department has considerably more time than many other departments.

So at the very outset I just want to say that agriculture is still high on the Government’s priority list. I shall be discussing that in more detail at a later stage.

In the first instance I want to make a few overall remarks. As in the debate of my colleague, the hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics, it was clear from the speeches made during this debate that there is a tremendous overflow from one department to the other. I can very well understand that because of the great difficulty of rigidly separating various elements of agriculture. So may I just say on this occasion—I think my hon colleague also mentioned this in his debate—-that we greatly appreciate the fact that hon members sometimes experience problems in knowing which matters fall under which department. Within this new set-up, however, we have established a convention which will hopefully be in existence for the duration of this dispensation, and that is that we have closest possible co-operation between the two ministries. We hold regular discussions. We also have a committee of officials that sits once every two months. At these meetings various matters are discussed at both these levels. We also have a ministerial agricultural liaison committee dealing with these matters. I can therefore assure hon members that as far as agriculture as a whole is concerned—ie both the general affairs department and the own affairs department—the problems are very systematically addressed at all times.

I want to make a second point, and I think it is necessary for me to do so on this occasion. I want to thank all hon members for the acclamation with which my speech was received yesterday. I should like to thank hon members for that. I think it is a speech that should be read again. I think hon members should again read that speech carefully.

†The hon member for Albany suggested that I circulate copies of the speech to all the farmers’ associations. Should any hon member wish to obtain a copy of the speech, he must please contact my office. We will gladly supply him with a copy. I really do think it is necessary for hon members to read the speech again. They can do so in their own time and should, in fact, take their time about it because the speech does contain a few elements which we will have to debate at a later stage.

*So once again I extend my thanks to hon members for having commended me on that speech.

I should like to make a few overall remarks about the debate as such. There is an idea prevalent in this country, an idea which I want to eradicate here today. Not all farmers are having a hard time of it in this country. That is not true. We must eradicate that view, and I asked the Press specifically to mention that. It is not true, is it, that all the farmers in this country are having a hard time of it. Things are going well, very well indeed, for the wool farmers, the mohair farmers, the deciduous fruit industry, the citrus industry and many other industries. [Interjections.] So we must just be careful not to proclaim to the country at large that all the farmers in the country are having a hard time of it. Things are even going very well for the meat industry—I am speaking specifically of the small-stock industry, because I know there are problems in the cattle industry.

The second point I want to make, a point which is perhaps important and which has come to light in this debate, is that the drought was the greatest single factor contributing to the financial dilemma in which many of our farmers find themselves. Let us acknowledge this. Yesterday I mentioned numerous other measures such as fiscal measures, interest rates, etc. The drought, however, was the largest single factor contributing to the financial dilemma in which our farmers find themselves.

And the policy.

Inflation.

Let me just ask hon members to give me a chance, because I now want to discuss a serious matter which we should all take note of. If there was one lesson for us to have learned from this drought, this dilemma, it was perhaps that the rains come from above. The Government has no control over that, because it is a much higher authority than the Government that determines that. Let us always bear that in mind in our discussion of agriculture. We must take the lesson to heart that our Creator, perhaps for some other reason, wanted to impress on this country.

I want to make a third point. It has clearly come to the fore in this debate that we have reached a stage in the history of our agricultural production in which the cultivation of cash crops on marginal land will have to be phased out. [Interjections.] The hon member for Albany made the point about the valley bushveld and I fully agree with him. To use bulldozers on the beautiful valley bushveld grazing areas so that cash crops can be planted, thus disturbing the ecology of our country as a whole, is wrong. That happened in Vryburg, and the hon member for Vryburg will concede as much. I am not afraid to say these things. This has happened in some of the areas in the Western Transvaal. Let us be frank about this, because it is true, is it not. The time has come for us to take a very serious look at this problem. At the moment I am examining certain research priorities. I think that we should devote the discussion of this Vote next year to a consideration of a research strategy. At this stage, in conjunction with the department, I am having a look at how the money on research is being spent, and we are in the process of ascertaining priorities. I wonder whether there is any sense in continuing to use research funds, which are in short supply, for the cultivation of cash crops on marginal land. I think that time has passed.

The hon member for Mooi River made that point, saying that the future of food production in this country lay in the high-potential areas with the high rainfall where the risks were considerably lower. The future also lies in the irrigation areas where one at least eliminates the major risk factor in the sense that there is water available for irrigation. I think we shall have to address this matter very seriously and, when the burden of debt of these farmers is something of the past, find a way in which those areas can be restored to their original condition.

I was in Bloemfontein a short while ago and I am concerned about an area such as Petrusburg. When we travelled to Bloemfontein by car one day, about 50 kilometres from Bloemfontein, in broad daylight, we had to turn on the headlights because of the dust blowing in the direction of Durban. The ecology of that area has been completely disrupted. I was approached by a man who said he came from Petrusburg. When he said that, I simply threw up my hands—the hon member for Fauresmith knows what I am talking about—but he told me I had no need to worry because he had kept his livestock, had not ploughed his fields and was doing very well.

Farming is not a get-rich-quick occupation. We must accept that fact. It is a long-term investment and we must get away from the idea that one can grow wealthy overnight. It has taken the majority of us sitting here— those who are old farmers—a lifetime to get a little something together. We must bring that home to our farmers. We must stop ploughing up soil that should never be ploughed at all.

The hon member for Bethlehem also made that point. He also made another point that I want to elaborate on now. There are areas where maize is cultivated, but where maize should never have been cultivated, because the crops should rather have been peanuts or sunflower seed. Those are problems that we in the department are having a serious look at. As I said yesterday in my speech, future drought aid will very definitely be more rigidly implemented than in the past. If a farmer purposely incorporates certain risks into his farming operations, he should not have recourse to Government assistance. [Interjections.] Hon members can say those things outside the Committee. That is my unshakable conviction; that is the law of agriculture and we cannot get away from it.

I should like to come now to a few speeches, but as I have already said, it will be impossible to deal with all of them. I should just like to reply to a few speeches focusing on a few matters that we have identified. Firstly I come to the question of long-term measures. Throughout the years we have been accused, in this debating Chamber, of not having a plan for agriculture. In every debate on agriculture that has taken place here—I attended them regularly—we were told we had no plan for agriculture.

The year before last, however, my colleague tabled the White Paper on Agricultural Policy. What is that then, if not a governmental long-term plan? The Government endorsed that White Paper. Those hon members who ask me whether there is still a future for White farmers in this country, should read that White Paper. [Interjections.] Agricultural policy is emphatically spelled out in that White Paper and the Government has endorsed it.

You people change your policy so frequently … [Interjections.]

That hon member must not try to back down now. I shall be getting to him soon. [Interjections.]

You people change your policy every week!

That White Paper is a long-term plan for agriculture.

Last year we also launched the national grazing strategy. What is that, if not a longterm plan for grazing in this country? This year we have a financial strategy which is also a long-term plan. I am being criticised for having tried to spell out the long-term plan here and for not having got round to the short-term measures. I shall, however, do so now.

The hon member for Lichtenburg said it was comparable to a man who had had one of his arteries severed, but with the treatment only focusing on the symptoms and not paying any attention to the severed artery.

No, that is not right!

To treat an illness properly, one must make a correct diagnosis. Any hon member who is a doctor will concede as much. Hon members must therefore also concede this point to me.

One must just not take too long to find out what is wrong!

We must get to the very heart of the problem in agriculture. We must attempt to treat the long-term problems.

I shall now come to the short-term measures that have been adopted and are already in operation. I do not know why hon members got so excited about the short-term measures. Hon members all know about the livestock grazing scheme. As far back as March the continuation of the scheme was announced. Since 1 April all the areas still suffering from a critical drought were incorporated in the livestock grazing scheme, except for a few that fall under phase 5. I wish I could show hon members the relevant map. Whereas previously it looked like a crossword puzzle of different colours, at least now there is a look of uniformity about it. It was a very good step we took, and this will considerably lighten my department’s administrative burden.

For this reason we have allowed the interest subsidy on carry-over debts for the summer crop areas to remain in force until 1 August 1986. Two or three weeks ago I also approved the continuance of that scheme for the winter grain areas where they have had to start planting now. I have also approved new production credit because the co-operatives have already had to provide their members with production credit. That has already been approved.

I received the Agricultural Union’s proposals regarding short-term measures in the summer grain areas on 29 April 1986. On 2 May I referred these to the Jacobs Committee and, as far as my knowledge goes, they discussed the matter yesterday. I am awaiting their proposals because, as hon members know, all proposals having financial implications are referred to the Jacobs Committee. We must therefore wait quietly and patiently until the proposals are tabled. The Government will then take a decision and make an announcement in good time so that farmers can, in the new production season, employ any aid schemes that are offered.

We have also adopted further short-term measures. Deferment has been granted, by the Agricultural Credit Board, on up to 78% of the repayments on production loans. We are now in the process of examining this, because hon members will understand that this has a tremendous influence on the funds flowing back to our revolving fund. The hon members for Barberton, Schweizer-Reneke, Sasolburg, Soutpansberg, Vryburg, Lichtenburg and Albany spoke about this.

I think the hon member for Potgietersrus mentioned the interest subsidy on Land Bank loans in the designated areas, something which is also a short-term measure. At a later stage I shall briefly be referring to the steps that have been taken for the designated areas. Deferment has been granted on the repayment of all debt burdens incurred with the department. I also know—I can say this here today—that the Land Bank very readily grants deferments on payments that have to be made.

We allow farmers to go and do outside jobs for up to two years, even though this is something that is not permissible in terms of our legislation. This concession is also one of the short-term measures that have been adopted.

So numerous short-term steps have been taken. I was asked about the decrease in the budget. Really! I have dealt with this matter repeatedly, but let us analyse the budget in detail. I am not going to deal with it, programme for programme: Plant production promotion is being increased by 13,3%; animal production promotion by 63%; agricultural resource utilisation by 15,7%; entrepreneur development by 3%; the establishment of State-aided water schemes by 19% and operation of government water schemes by 11,3%.

As far as Programme 9 is concerned, Associated and Supporting Services, the increases are as follows: Botanical research has been increased by 12%; Biometric and datametric services by 17,2%; development of State agricultural land by 4,8%; chemical services by 13,5%; maintenance services by 19,9%; in-service training by 8%; liaison services by 15%; workshop services by 22,6%; other subprogrammes by 97% and administration by 22%. Those are all increases, and the only decrease involves relief of distress, but let us analyse that too.

What about agricultural financing?

I am coming to that in a moment! The hon member has mentioned agricultural financing. That has not been decreased. There has been an increase, but the amount provided for relief of distress has been decreased for one simple reason. When we finally drew up the Budget towards the end of January, there was still a record maize crop on the land. The hon member knows that. Surely we cannot budget for relieving the distress of maize farmers knowing there is a record maize crop on the land. We could not, after all, have foreseen that there would again be an extended drought. The livestock fodder subsidies and so on had drastically decreased; surely we had to make provision for that. We also had to make provision for the funds flowing back to the revolving fund, but the hon member does not take that into consideration. If he were to have taken that into consideration, he would have known that an amount of only R70 million means that we have R1 million more in the Budget for the relief of distress than we had last year.

Surely the hon member knows that year after year we request more money in the Additional Appropriation for disasters that hit this country. These requests have never been turned down. Hon members must please not disseminate the idea that agriculture is a low priority because the Budget has supposedly been decreased. It has not. The hon member must prove to me that it has been decreased, as is being alleged. He may now have a look at these figures I have mentioned and study the Appropriation. I do not think he has ever looked at that document. That finally disposes of this matter. [Interjections.]

This brings me to housing for farm-labourers. The hon members for Pietermaritzburg North, Wynberg, Mooi River and Pietermaritzburg-South specifically emphasised the improvement of the living conditions of farmworkers. Let me say at once that in looking at the unrest in our country, we must pay tribute to our fanners for the fact that there is a minimum of unrest on the farms. In fact, I do not know of a single area where there is unrest on farms.

At least the farmer is still the boss on his farm.

I think it is a feather in the caps of our farmers that they have created such sound relations between employer and employee. I think it is necessary for us to take a serious look at the improvement of the farm-worker’s lot. I should like to appeal to our farmers today to take a very serious look at better housing, an increase in living conditions and so on—there are numerous needs—because labour is going to be agriculture’s Achilles’ heel. [Interjections.] There have been questions about whether we could not increase the unit amount. I very much wanted to do so, but as a result of the limited funds available for housing for labourers—that was one of the schemes which was stopped and which is now again being reinstated, because we chiefly financed this from savings and from money that flows back into the revolving fund—I have decided to grant a small increase this year in the loans available for housing.

Mention has been made of the fact that we register mortgages. It must be borne in mind that on a farm a house is an improvement of fixed assets. What other security could the State accept for that loan? It is a 20-year loan, if I am correct.

The period is five years.

No, it is 20 years. [Interjections.] No, the hon member must have another look. It is a scheme covering a period of 20 years at 1% interest.

Then they are asking too much money …

He is thinking of squatters!

In any case, let me just say that I can understand the possibility of having a bond registered for a small loan for two houses. The Agricultural Credit Board merely takes the property on which the house is to be built as security. This would not be extended to other property. It is merely applicable to that property. So as far as that is concerned, we really must not enter into any further discussions. We have no other security we can accept, and Treasury instructions require us, in fact, to accept security in such cases.

There is perhaps one last comment I can make in this connection. A few hon members proposed that we create certain areas where labourers as a group could live together so that farmers would have a labour pool. Quite a few hon members spoke about that, and an investigation is already in progress into the possibility of placing labourers in urban areas, particularly in the labour-intensive areas, with every farmer going to fetch his labourers in the morning and returning them in the evening. I think the proposal has great merit, and we are in the process of investigating this very thoroughly. The Urban Foundation is also engaged in an investigation into this. I think it is a good idea to accommodate labourers in areas that have the necessary infrastructure such as water, electricity, etc.

I want to recommend that hon members go and have a look at the work being done by the Urban Foundation. I think there was a group here that went to have a look. I think the Foundation is doing absolutely outstanding work. Hon members all know Mr Okkie Bosnian, the ex-clergyman, and they would do well to go to Stellenbosch, Elgin or one of the places near here to see what these people are doing. That is absolutely fantastic work that is being done, work initiated by Jan Boland Coetzee. Hon members must really go and have a look at it. The Urban Foundation is also starting to extend its activities so rapidly, even to our northern provinces, that it simply can no longer accommodate the applications from people who want to join.

Mr Chairman, a fair amount has also been said about extension and training, amongst others by the hon members for SchweizerReneke, Prieska, Kimberley North, Wynberg, Pietermaritzburg South and King William’s Town, and also the hon member Dr Odendaal. I consider this to be an extremely important matter, and I particularly want to ask hon members to reread the hon member Dr Odendaal’s speech. I think he made a very informative speech about the question of extension. He also emphasised the State’s involvement in research and extension work. I think it is a very thorough piece of work. In fact, he also made this speech to the Organisation of Extension Officers. I agree with him on a few basic aspects. I agree with him, amongst other things, when he says that the State will have to be involved at all times in research and extension work. The State will have to remain involved, because that is the only objective extension work that can be done because it is not bound to certain organisations or to certain commodities that have to be sold.

Mention has also been made here of the economic training of our farmers. That is an extremely important matter, and we are also giving attention to it, as I indicated in the introductory speech I made here yesterday. That is extremely important. If there is one festering sore that needs more attention in agriculture than any other, it is this matter of economic extension work, also including financial planning as far as our farmers are concerned.

With regard to the increase, in the number of students at our agricultural colleges, let me just mention that we are continually giving attention to that aspect. I just want to point out that the college at Nelspruit is in the process of being built at the moment. I think that was mentioned here yesterday. We are also engaged in extensions to the buildings at Glen and one of the other colleges too. So this is one of the matters receiving very urgent attention. It is also a priority in the department’s programme.

I now want to say a few things about the co-ordination of extension officers. Just the other day I asked the Organisation of Extension Officers why we needed legislation to regulate extension work in this country. It surely ought not to be necessary. Extension officers can, after all, voluntarily co-ordinate their work, there being nothing to prevent them from doing so. There has, in fact, been a trial run in the Highveld region. Someone referred to that here. I think we should simply ask our extension officers to get together on a voluntary basis—since we cannot put the Kolb report’s recommendations into operation—and co-ordinate matters so that we can at least have uniformity in the extension work being done in South Africa. That is extremely important. Our farmers are being confused to such an extent in regard to extension work that I really must say that this is one of the department’s priority tasks. We simply have to bring about co-ordination in this regard.

In regard to financial extension work by officials, I have already conceded, in numerous debates here, that we offer some of the best technical extension work in the world, but that we have perhaps lagged behind in the sphere of financial extension work. I just want to tell hon members, however, what is happening. Last year we lost 50 extension officers. I just want to refer briefly to the particulars of one specific case—that of a cooperative that hired an extension officer away from the department. He was an assistant agricultural production economist. He therefore occupied a relatively low position in the department. His salary was R16 020 per annum. He was employed by a co-operative for a salary of R29 000 per annum plus a car scheme. The State cannot compete with that. It is just not possible. I could mention numerous similar cases to hon members. Here I have a list of similar instances. In the majority of cases I can even furnish the salaries they were offered.

Mr Chairman, I briefly want to put two questions to the hon the Minister. Is there a shortage of extension officers at the moment, or have some of the posts for extension officers been frozen? Here I am referring specifically to the extension officer post at Louis Trichardt. That post has now been vacant since 1 March 1983. I should like to know why that is so. Secondly, Mr Chairman, I know that people with experience are needed as extension officers. Is it not perhaps possible to employ qualified people, who are doing military service, to do extension work?

Mr Chairman, let me answer the hon member for Soutpansberg’s questions immediately. Louis Trichardt is being given very serious attention at the moment. In fact, the entire designated area is receiving very urgent attention at the moment, because I think it is essential for us to try to fill those posts as quickly as possible.

I must hurry, but perhaps I should just say something about the designated area. Hon members will remember that I announced that the task group for the designated area had been asked, in conjuction with Mr Nico Kotzé, the President of the Transvaal Agricultural Union, and also the Deputy President of the SAAU, to do a quick survey of the designated area because I personally was very concerned about the financial problems of our fanners there. We received the task group’s report and recommendations, which are being considered at the moment. I cannot tell hon members precisely what it is all about, but I can give them the assurance that we are expecting an announcement within a month. There are far-reaching proposals with extensive financial implications. Hon members can therefore understand that the matter cannot be finalised that quickly. The report does, however, contain some excellent proposals and I hope we shall be able to implement the majority of them. I hope to make the relevant announcement soon. We shall be making a joint announcement, because I am not the only one involved, and that complicates matters a little. I implement the majority of those schemes, but the hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics is also involved, as is the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. There are quite a few ministeries involved, and we shall probably be making this announcement very shortly.

I have now answered the majority of the questions, but there are just a few other matters I should like to touch upon. The hon member for Ceres spoke about the high land prices and also about too large portions of land. He also spoke about the preservation of the family farm. Small uneconomic units in agriculture are iniquitous, and to the hon member for Sasolburg, who made the point yesterday that we should keep all our farmers on the land, let me just say that that is not possible. The hon member must tell me whether a farmer with 500 ewes can make a decent living. Surely that is not possible. We had a survey carried out in an adjacent district, and more than 40% of the participating farmers have fewer than 1 000 sheep. Our determination of an economic unit is in the vicinity of 1 200 to 1 400 sheep. More than 40% of farmers in the relevant district, however, had fewer than 1 000 sheep. What can the Government do to rectify matters? After all, our natural grazing is already being overutilised.

The hon member made the point about portions of land that are too large. Let me tell him that it is also iniquitous to be in possession of too much land, and we shall have to address that problem. Those who have such great hunger for land, and who want to buy up everything, then blame the Government for the depopulation of the rural areas. They are responsible for it, not us. [Interjections. ] We shall also have to address that problem. That is a very important point the hon member made.

The hon member for Barberton addressed me on the suspension of schemes. Let me just tell him that owing to the difficulties the Government has at present as a result of limited finance, and owing to the list of priorities of the Department itself, we thought that there were schemes which we could suspend without any undue discomfort. Let us rather employ all the money at our disposal for emergency relief. Let us therefore rather spend our money where the crisis is most acute. That is the reason why those schemes were suspended, and in the event of conditions improving again, we shall once more put the schemes into operation. I would very much like to put them into operation, because they are of cardinal importance. That is, however, the reason why the schemes were suspended.

As far as sales in execution are concerned, quite a few hon members have said that the State should participate in buying up that land. That is a very dangerous thing to do, because the moment the State enters the land market, prices increase. We know that. We did a survey in the designated area. If we were to sell all the uneconomical land at market value and make the uneconomic land viable, it would cost us in the vicinity of R1 000 million and we do not, after all, have that kind of money! I am hesitant to say today that the State should enter the market. If prices were to decrease to agricultural value, however, as the hon member for Lichtenburg put it, and the Landbank or the Department held the first mortgage we would, of course, purchase that land. In the process we would then, of necessity, try to have the farmers remain on the land, if this were at all possible.

The hon member for Gordonia made a very meaningful speech. He made the point that much of the short-term debt had now assumed long-term proportions. That is an absolutely unhealthy phenomenon in agriculture.

He also spoke of great investment and irrigation systems. My own colleague, the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Water Affairs, calls them the “wheels”. I want to tell hon members that these centre-pivot systems have plunged many a fanner into debt from which he is never going to extricate himself because he did not obtain the necessary technical knowledge. If he had only contacted the engineering division of the department in Pretoria, those problems could have been avoided. There are so many factors that have to be taken into account when one installs a centre-point system that it is humanly impossible for the average farmer to have that information. We do, however, have the necessary technical knowledge in the department. The hon member is quite right.

As far as transactions between fathers and sons are concerned, we agree wholeheartedly with the hon member. If estate duty were abolished, what would happen is that fathers would not all that readily transfer the land to their sons. Why have fathers transferred land to their sons? This has, of course, been done to escape estate duty. So in this connection we shall have to take specific steps. What I am saying is that when sons take over from their fathers things should be made as easy for them as possible, from a tax point of view too. The Margo Commission is, in any event, looking into this.

†The hon member for Mooi River raised the point of the production of food. I have already stated what my views are on the production of food in high potential areas. I think he raised some very good points which I have, however, already covered in my reply.

He also referred to the fact that the processing of applications to the Agricultural Credit Board takes a long time. I concede that that is true, but the hon member will understand that on account of this vast drought, practically throughout the country, the amount of work with which this department has had to cope has been substantially more than usual.

*It is impossible for me to reply to everything the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke referred to. He did, however, raise one important point that I do want to respond to. He said that the commercial banks had make mistakes. When I was having discussions with the commercial banks, they conceded that they had made mistakes. I then told them that we had to try to achieve uniformity with regard to agricultural financing. We should just try to get our norms and standards on a uniform footing. It will consequently be the bank manager’s task to assess the “jockey”. It will then be up to him to decide whether he wants to build a greater risk factor into the loan because the entrepreneur, the farmer, has set about things in a sound, scientific manner. I therefore agree wholeheartedly with the hon member.

†The hon member for Bezuidenhout referred to malpractice with regard to natural resources. I agree with him fully that we do find this happening. I think the hon member knows what my sentiments on this issue are in view of the National Grazing Strategy which was announced last year. I agree with the hon member about the Karroo caterpillar. There were grasslands there before; he is quite right. Today we are left with only the Karroo. [Interjections.] We are at the moment investigating the possibility of resuming research on the Karroo caterpillar, I think I shall be able to make an announcement on this issue in the near future.

I do not want to speak about locusts because, as the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South pointed out, that is a general affair. [Interjections.] I just want to say to the hon member for Bezuidenhout that we read in the Bible of locusts. He should go and read that.

They started it!

Yes, they started this! [Interjections.]

*The hon member for Prieska made a very nice speech about the grazing strategy. I do not have the time to elaborate, but perhaps I should just say, since he spoke about implementation, that the new carrying capacity norms are based on one fact, and that is the long-term carrying capacity of that land. Secondly he made the point about statistics. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South also made this point, complaining about the old pumpkin census form, which farmers simply whizzed through in an evening. I did so myself; I myself am guilty of that. Do hon members know, however, that that is the only source of statistics that we could get hold of? Unfortunately it failed lamentably, and that is why it was abolished too. I agree with the hon member about that. The problem was also addressed in my speech yesterday evening.

I give Dr Agenbach a sidelong glance when I refer to part-time extension officers. I think it is a matter we should have a look at. I honestly think so—particularly owing to the shortage of extension officers. Hon members must simply leave the matter in my hands so that I can have a bit of a discussion about this with the department.

I have already replied to most of the questions put by the hon member for De Aar. I hope the report of the Economic Advisory Council will be available very soon. He spoke about the prices of products being too low. There are only two prices still being determined by the Government, and those are the maize and wheat prices. The hon member must tell me which of those two prices is too low. I think it is necessary for the hon member to tell me which of those prices is too low, because those are the only prices still being determined by the Government. Those are the two fixed-price schemes. I do not think we must simply make the statement that this is due to the prices of products being too low.

I said that that was part of the farmers’ dilemma.

That is possible. That is very possible, but the majority of these products compete on the open market.

The hon member also spoke about the freezing of input costs. That is very dangerous because then they are going to say that we should also freeze the prices of products. I think that is a very dangerous statement.

This brings me to the hon member for Kimberley North. What an imposing figure to listen to! [Interjections.] He addressed a few cardinal issues. He said, for example, that credit, like any other aspect of the economy, is subject to supply and demand. That is true. When the money is running out of our ears, the supply is overwhelming, and that goes for the subsequent demand too. That is where our problem started. He said that we should teach our children how to work with money. We must also pay attention to this in the schools. What he said, is very true.

He made a further point on which I want to elaborate. He said: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.” If our farmers would take that piece of wisdom from the Bible to heart, they would be able to build up reserves, because one cannot build up any reserves if one does not pay income tax. That is not possible.

I have already dealt with the hon member for Sasolburg’s speech. I have also replied to the hon member Dr Odendaal; I do not want to say anything further about that. The hon member for Wynberg is not here. He must therefore excuse me if I omit his contribution. I have already replied to the hon member for Bethlehem. Likewise the hon member for Soutpansberg’s comments on the designated areas, and that is all I want to say about that. I have also replied to what the hon member for Potgietersrus had to say about the designated areas. The hon member for Beaufort West referred to the burden of debt of lifestock farmers. Hon members are aware of the fact that we have placed the debt burden of lifestock farmers on a long-term footing. A sincere thanks for his expression of thanks to the Government on behalf of the famers.

†The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North spoke about red meat. I fully agree with him, but that is a marketing aspect which does not fall under my jurisdiction.

*A short while ago all hon members took note of the announcement by the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development about boerewors. I shall say nothing more about that. [Interjections.]

†May I just have the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North’s attention? Our scheme makes provision for boreholes for domestic purposes.

*I think I have also replied fully to the hon member for Winburg, except in regard to the use of agricultural land for other purposes. There is a strict governmental provision about high-grade agricultural land not being used for township extension and so on. There is a strict provision in that regard. I can give hon members the assurance that our department makes a very important contribution in this respect. I think the hon member for Albany also made that point.

I have already replied to the hon member for Lichtenburg. I realise that my time has expired, but I just want to reply to the hon member for Kuruman. I do not want to bring any unpleasant aspects into this debate, but the hon member made a remark here that I cannot allow to pass without qualifications. [Interjections.] He asked whether the Government was not purposely trying to force down land prices, thereby driving the white farmers from the land and giving it to others. [Interjections.]

That is not what I said. [Interjections.]

Order!

Suffice it to say that that remark is not worthy of the hon member for Kuruman.

That is not what I said.

It is! The hon member should go and read his Hansard.

I know what I said! [Interjections.]

The hon member would do well to go and read his Hansard.

Order! I am not going to allow hon members to engage in a slanging match across the floor of the House.

I checked with Hansard, Mr chairman.

I know exactly what I said.

Order! My ruling also applies to the hon member for Kuruman!

I checked that speech and I just want to say that no one in this Committee can fail to appreciate the Government’s involvement in agriculture over the past few years. Hundreds of millions of rand have been spent on emergency aid to agriculture. Why would the Government do that if it did not want to keep the farmers on the land? At the end of last year I announced a scheme aimed at keeping the farmers on the land. Surely I am part and parcel of the Government. I am not a separate entity. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kuruman should go and read the White Paper in which it is stated that as many farmers as possible should, as far as possible, be kept on the land. [Interjections.]

I am sorry that I cannot answer any further question by hon members. I just want to conclude by thanking hon members sincerely for a very stimulating debate. I think it was a meaningful debate. We have addressed the problems in agriculture, and it gave me a very great satisfaction to listen to the excellent speeches by hon members. Once again I thank them very sincerely.

Vote agreed to.

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

Mr Chairman, the matter of this Bill has resulted in a rather wide debate. As previous speakers from this party have said, the PFP will be opposing this Bill, not because we object to the primary purpose of the Bill but because of the financial implications in it.

As I have said, the debate has in fact become a rather wide one. I want to deal particularly with “simulcasting”, or what is known in Afrikaans as “koppeluitsendings”. This topic has already been raised in the debate by the hon members for Sasolburg and Pietersburg. [Interjections.] They, however, raised the topic in the spirit of its being a capitulation of Afrikaans in that “simulcasting” is going to represent a serious attack on the position of Afrikaans. As I see it, we should consider carefully the issues surrounding a question like this one.

On 14 April, the Nasionale Pers newspapers raised the question of “simulcasting”. Prof Jaap Steyn, in particular, perceived it as representing a great danger to Afrikaans. All of us are concerned about our language and whenever we raise the question of a language, whether it be English, Afrikaans or Zulu, we find a warm response from our constituents because people actually care about their language. I believe that we should always be sensitive to that issue. It is also important that hon members of the CP and HNP are also sensitive to that.

However, when one reads an article in Huisgenoot of 8 May 1986 which gives some very interesting statistics on this whole matter, one sees that TV4 which is primarily for entertainment has approximately 2,2 million viewers, but of those only 34% are Afrikaans-speaking. Of that 34%, 400 000 are White and 346 000 so-called Coloureds. However, what is more interesting is that of those 2,2 million viewers 870 000 are Black as opposed to only 800 000 who are White. All these people watch programmes on TV4 including the Afrikaans programmes.

Television is in a sense a commercial operation and SABC-TV recognise the fact that they have to demand more money for television advertisements that are watched by more people. They recognise that more people watch English television than they do Afrikaans television. That is why 30 seconds of Afrikaans-medium advertising between 17h30 and 20h00 costs R11 202—I do not know why it is that strange figure—while an English advertisement costs R13 080 for 30 seconds. After 20h00 the discrepancy is even wider. An Afrikaans advertisement only costs R10 800 and an English one R14 400. That is worked out on a scientific basis and no man who is buying advertising is going to be prepared to pay more if there are fewer viewers.

We are a country of minorities. The reality is that in the White community alone Afrikaans-speaking people number only 50,5% of all the Whites. About 40% are English-speaking but there are about 800 000 other Whites who are neither English nor Afrikaans-speaking. Just over half of the White population are therefore Afrikaans-speaking whereas 88% of so-called Coloureds are Afrikaans-speaking. That gives us a total of only 4 to 4½ million Afrikaans-speaking people in a population of 30 million which the SATV serves.

There are probably about 3 million people whose home language is English. However, there are probably another 8 to 9 million who understand and speak English. The Huisgenoot expresses it well in Afrikaans when they say: “Hulle is gekonfyt in Engels” because they are so used to it.

That is “jam”.

They are people who are not actually English-speaking but they use English as a second language, as do of course many people throughout the world. The total of that group is possibly about 12 million. The next biggest group— very close to the 12 million—are probably those who speak the Nguni-related languages of siSwati, isiZulu and isiXhosa and they probably number some of 12 million as well.

What I think we must appreciate in this House that we are a country of minorities in language terms. I think it is unfortunate that one gets the kind of statement such as that of the hon member for Sasolburg. He said that he was concerned about the fact that Afrikaans was being subjected to what he called a spirit of internationalism. He said:

What does he mean by indigenous Whites anyway? What he actually means is people who speak Afrikaans. Then the hon member goes on to complain—this is the kind of nonsense that we get from fanatics such as the hon member for Sasolburg—that the cheaper German and French imports are dubbed into Afrikaans.

The hon member is not concerned that the German and French television productions may be better in terms of quality than the American products. Then the hon member goes on to say:

What the hon member does not seem to understand is that they are not cheaper because they are inferior but, because they go to a smaller viewing public, they are sold at a lower price.

No, they are buying obsolete stuff! That is the problem!

Because the hon member for Sasolburg wants to be an agitator and whip up emotions he says that these programmes are second rate because they are less expensive than the American ones. This does not follow at all.

The hon member for Pietersburg also spoke during the same debate. I quote from Hansard, 23 April 1986, col 4094:

I have nothing against Afrikaners. I am married to an Afrikaans woman, I send my children to Afrikaans-medium schools and my mother was an Afrikaans woman but I am an English-speaking person. However, the point I want to make is put very well by Mr Koos Human, general manager of Human and Rousseau Publishers. I quote from the Huisgenoot of 8 May 1986:

This article then quotes Mr Dirk Pretorius who points out that their experience in the SABC is that an Afrikaans TV programme of good quality draws a substantially increased number of English-speaking viewers.

I believe the attitude should not be one of attempting to force Afrikaans on the rest of the population but rather of encouraging them.

Afrikaans has a good future in this country if it can be separated from the politics of apartheid. I believe that if the hon CP and HNP members are trying to hijack the Afrikaans language for their political purposes they will destroy that language in the process. Afrikaans must be depoliticised and it must be accepted as a language which can be used by all people whether it is to be used by Breyten Breytenbach or the hon member for Sasolburg. They should both be able to use that language and because they both use that language it should not be a political issue. Then Afrikaans will have a future.

It is interesting that Prof Jakes Gerwel, the professor of Afrikaans at the University of the Western Cape says in the article:

He is not worried about Afrikaans. He goes on to say:

I believe that should be the spirit in which Afrikaans is approached. I take my hat off to the SABC for their introduction of simulcasts, because they are going to make more money out of their TV programmes. Viewership will increase, and even many Afrikaners would rather watch Miami Vice in English than in Afrikaans.

It is a matter of regret to me that the hon members for Pietersburg and Sasolburg have endeavoured to abuse their own language for their political purposes. As somebody who is sympathetic to the cause of their language, I want to tell the hon members that.

You are talking nonsense!

There is one other matter to which I wish to encourage the SABC to give attention. If this country is to survive as a democracy, our people have to get used to debating issues. They must become accustomed to the idea of loyal opposition. They have to realise that the fact that someone may disagree with one does not mean that one has to burn his house, attack him, refuse to serve on a school committee with him or want to start a rival Broederbond, for example.

I believe that the SABC can help in this process, and I would like to give an example of how they can go about it. Dr Boesak made some or other comment about Eugene Terre’Blanche and the AWB. Why does not the SABC get Dr Boesak and Mr Terre’Blanche together on the same television programme to debate the issues? I can promise that they will have a vast viewing public, and that the SABC will be able to charge R25 000 for each 30 second advertising spot before and after that debate. SABC-TV should telecast many debates of this kind.

The South African public does not consist of fools. They can handle the kind of stuff that comes from the hon members for Pietersburg and Sasolburg, but let us debate it so that the viewers can digest the views expressed. I believe that this would give the public an opportunity to hear debate and discussion.

In that way, the SABC will be doing South Africa a service which I believe will be in the long-term interests of our country and, indeed, of all of us as we seek to move this country onto a more effective democratic base.

This is not intended as a reflection upon you, Sir, or on any of the other presiding officers, but this debate has unfortunately ranged very widely beyond the terms of the Bill under discussion. The PFP will, however, be voting against the Bill, primarily because of its taxation implications.

Mr Chairman, recently the SABC has been subjected to close scrutiny, largely by themselves. It was found that more than one situation in the SABC was unhealthy and undesirable. My observation is that the SABC made blatant use of politically-motivated appointments. This resulted in the organisation failing as a source of information and as a news coverage medium.

When news is conveyed, it must be expressed exactly as it was observed or as the relevant incident took place. The moment one tampers with it and adds one’s own ideas to it, it is no longer news but propaganda.

Mr Riaan Eksteen has said that he would not broadcast anything which was in conflict with the interests of the country. This proves my statement. Who is Riaan Eksteen to tell us in Parliament that he will decide what is in the interests of the country?

He is a dictator!

Is this not the same man who six years ago was the great intercessor for apartheid in the UNO? Was it in the interests of the country to have apartheid at that stage? How does he explain it that he is now dismantling apartheid on television? Is this also in the interests of the country?

One can almost say that this is the kind of ambivalence and “I know everything” attitude which has not only twined the SABC into a NP propaganda medium, but has also made it unacceptable in the average household. There are an incredible number of Nationalists who are very worried today about the methods being used by the SABC in broadcasts.

It is disgraceful to see that, when someone appears in a programme on television or is given a hearing, background material is given which is totally in conflict with the politics represented by the relevant person. [Interjections.] Sir, just think of what happened recently when one of the CP members appeared on television. Beforehand a homeland—a little White homeland—was shown, and certain statements which we had nothing to do with were made. In this way an incorrect picture is given to uninformed people, and then …

Jell us right now where this homeland, the Coloured homeland, is.

Of course I think the hon member wants to move there. Minister Hendrickse has accommodation for many of these deserters. There is a place they can go to. He will accommodate them. [Interjections.]

When Mr Eksteen says that he does not broadcast material if people want to encourage revolution and stir up the people, one can say that this is a contravention of a law of the country and consequently he has a point, but to say that he decides what is in the interests of South Africa, and that reform is in the interests of the country, means that this man should rather resign from his post and come here and put his case.

Do you not believe in reform? [Interjections.]

The big problem we have, if one looks at a programme like Network, is that a programme like this is nothing but a mere political rehash of something hon Ministers could not bring home to anyone in this House.

Natwork! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning stood here and made statements. If one is engaged in reform by stealth, it is extremely difficult to get back to the truth. When one then appoints a board which is suspect, one needs a Dr Andreas van Wyk to say things later on television while making gestures with his fingers at ear level to indicate quotation marks in order to stay away from the truth. [Interjections.]

I very frequently ask myself whether our integrity has sunk to such a level in this country that a normal, educated person can swallow the things these people tell them. Is it really necessary for one to swallow them? Then it is said that if one does not like what is being said one must switch off the television. That is true. One should switch off the television. But I pay for my licence. Consequently I am a shareholder in this organisation.

Where is your share certificate?

I pay for my licence. Mr Chairman, do you know, one constantly gets these people who never stop yapping, who never make a contribution themselves. But when matters which are in the interests of the country are discussed, a few of these people who never stop yapping always make a noise. [Interjections.]

Order! There are hon members who are making interjections which have absolutely nothing to do with the debate. The hon member for Langlaagte may proceed.

Mr Chairman, to put it briefly, what it amounts to is that the SABC has become totally untrustworthy. No matter what kind of programme the SABC presents, time and again one can see that it is instrumental in the spade-work for a specific situation—it is consequently a coworker of those persons who want to create that situation.

Even the weather reports attest to this! [Interjections.]

Consequently the SABC is merely a kind of co-worker of certain persons and organisations—nothing else. It is a co-worker of certain organisations which want to convey certain viewpoints.

Of the New Nats! [Interjections.]

The SABC is simply allowing itself to be totally misused. Of course this is a very great pity, Mr Chairman. There is so much good human material at the SABC. It is not a tremendous shortcoming that the voice of a Pieter de Bruyn for example is no longer heard? Is it not a tremendous shortcoming that the voices of certain well-known persons from the past are no longer heard?

What about Chris Blignaut and Elvis Presley?

I am talking about people who can present something from the depths of their hearts.

Like Chris Rencken! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the important thing is that those people were replaced by people who hold certain political views and also try to propagate them.

Mr Chairman, I predict a very strange future for the SABC. I want to say this in advance. On the establishment of M-Net the reports on the bookkeeping of the SABC came to light. In this report we see clearly that the concealment of money is nothing but the first trench from which M-Net is going to be fought. [Interjections.]

For what reason—for what possible reason—is M-Net being given the right to operate? [Interjections.] For what reason must a specific share be given to the newspapers, while trenches are being dug in the meanwhile in any case from which they can be fought. This is being done—I believe that this is only the start of the fight—by means of the concealment of capital, income and ordinary particulars. [Interjections.]

Hon members should go and read this report. They must study it thoroughly, and they will discover that this is a document which should not have been tabled in this House. The report is incomplete. It furnishes income, commission was paid but no particulars have been given in this regard. I do not want to point out all the facets of this. But this report proves to me that within two or three years, when the operating capital which the SABC has concealed, has been spent, it will be on its knees.

But I want to issue a warning that the SABC must not think of putting up licence fees. They must leave licence fees strictly alone. I can already deduce that the way is being paved for putting up the price of licences. I maintain that the licences were too expensive from the outset.

Mr Chairman, today I want to make it clear to the SABC that the ordinary public is sick and tired of having no say in the affairs of the SABC; because it has no right to put its case anywhere. [Interjections.]

Now someone like Sam Butu de Beer comes along, and he sits in our sitting rooms and preaches … [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I do not think it is permissible for the hon member for Langlaagte to address an hon Deputy Minister of this House in that way.

The hon the Deputy Minister is Sam Butu de Beer.

To which hon Deputy Minister is the hon member for Langlaagte referring now?

Mr Chairman, I am referring to the hon the Deputy Minister of Education and Development Aid. I have called him Butu all my life. [Interjections.] After all he is Butu de Beer! [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon the Deputy Minister’s second name Butu?

No, Mr Chairman, that is a friendly nickname I gave him.

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte must withdraw that nickname at once.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw Butu. [Interjections.]

This hon Deputy Minister is afforded the opportunity in a television broadcast costing thousands of rands to sit and preach about children of all races and colours, who must now ostensibly be together in education. Hon members must remember that I have nothing to do with race and colour. I am not concerned about that. [Interjections.] But he has no right to deny parents their right and to sit and preach without getting a representative from the parent-teachers’ association or anyone else to sit there with him and put the other side of the case. This is a one-sided brain-washing process, and it makes people despondent because they cannot do anything about it.

What has this got to do with the amending Bill?

I will tell the hon member what it has to do with the amending Bill. Does the hon member know what it has to do with it? Oh, but I do not want to be angry with the hon member. [Interjections.] Years ago Sir De Villiers Graaff said to the member: “Call me Sir (Seur)”, and if the hon member addresses me as Sir (Seur) I will also answer him. [Interjections.]

What right does an hon Deputy Minister have to demand time for himself to disseminate that story? People are becoming despondent in this country. The other evening I telephoned the SABC and do hon members know how they treat you? They put down the receiver while you are talking to them and then you can telephone until you are blue in the face. They simply ignore you.

In my constituency we mainly have a sociological problem, because very rich people of colour move in amongst very poor White people. We have tremendous problems with this.

Just prior to the election the SABC announced at regular intervals what Minister Pen Kotze was going to do, and how Minister Pen Kotze would send the Coloureds and Indians back where they had come from. He said that they had not fallen out of the sky. They had places where they were living, and just after the election they fell out of the sky again and landed back in Mayfair and they are still living there, and the Minister is not doing anything about his promises. [Interjections.]

But when my people telephone the SABC to make enquiries, the telephone receiver is slammed down and one cannot speak to them. One must nevertheless pay one’s licence fee.

Are you talking about a telephone licence now?

Consequently the SABC should be prepared to speak and to listen to what the listeners say.

The people told me that they wanted to march to the SABC. I told them: “Of course I will lead you. I have been with you since 1960 and I will lead you.” But we could not get permission from the chief magistrate to protest in front of the SABC—protest is the correct word because that is precisely what I wanted to do—about the untruths which were told about Mayfair at that stage. We were prohibited from doing so. Those people are dismayed by what happened there.

They should fire rubber bullets at you for a change! [Interjections.]

That just goes to show that the Government and its entire system is unfeeling. [Interjections.]

In my opinion the SABC’s version of what happened to the tape recordings of Dr Van Zyl Slabbert and the State President was disgraceful. Every person in this House has the same right as every other person, when he is under attack, but that was not the case with Dr Slabbert.

The behaviour of this Government and the imposing of its policy via instruments like the SABC on people like us and others, indicates that the SABC is not worthy of, or entitled to, so much money being spent on it. [Interjections.]

Every year I arrange a braaivleis for the senior citizens in my constituency. This has been going on for years now, and we do not prevent people from other old-age homes from attending it. We make sure that they have a wonderful, enjoyable day.

I hear it is a bring-and-braai! [Interjections.]

But recently we have had the problem that as a result of the housing shortage, the old people move around a great deal in one’s constituency.

What has that got to do with the legislation?

That is a reflection on the Chair, Roelf!

Yes. I just want to tell the hon member for Johannesburg West that I think that he must concentrate on his own affairs. He forms a part of the biggest problem in Mayfair because he did not have the courage at least to say that he holds his position cheaper than that of those people! [Interjections.]

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

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte must first withdraw the remark that the hon member for Johannesburg West does not have courage.

Sir, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Is the hon member prepared to reply to a question?

No, Sir, certainly not from the hon member for Innesdal. He wants to give all the land of the Whites to the Blacks and such people, and I do not talk to people like that! [Interjections.]

We now come to a very important matter. I wanted to invite the old people to attend the braaivleis and telephoned the SABC to ask whether they would not please broadcast that this function was going to take place. My reason for this request was that there might be people who were in difficulties.

We have an organisation in the region which keeps itself well-informed on the comings and goings of the old people. We visit the old people and ascertain whether they have certain essential commodities. Consequently if one merely broadcasts this on any of the radio stations the people hear about it and they telephone one. It is then possible to call on those people.

At that stage I found an old woman of 84 and her husband in my own constituency who only had half a bag of oranges left in the second week of a month. There was nothing else in the house.

I telephoned the SABC and asked a lady there—I do not want to mention her name; she may find herself in trouble—whether she could put me through to someone who could talk to me about this matter. She said that she would put me through to Mr So-and-So, who could not help me. The second Mr So-and-So to whom she wanted to put me through was unfortunately at a meeting. He was supposed to call me back. He never did call me back. I telephoned again the next day.

That is a smutty story.

Sir, I will tell you one thing, and that is that I have treated a traitor (Boereverraaier) with contempt. Throughout history one has always found that they are the people who tell lies (loskruit skiet). In this House one also comes across some of those traitors (Boereverraaiers) who tell lies (loskruit skiet)! [Interjections.]

I have the right for a request like mine to the SABC to be broadcast, but why did they not want to do so? Is it because they thought that I wanted to practise politics with those old people? Please! Who is the SABC to refuse me this?

All day long proclaim free initiative and privatisation. I wonder whether they do not want to participate in the Stock Exchange as a listed company. It is easy to do this. One can retain control in any company by giving the sole voting right to a controlling shareholder but that company remains responsible to the shareholders for its money. One can transfer control from government to government …

Order! I cannot see where the administrative affairs of the SABC are discussed in the amending Bill. The hon member is discussing the administration—good or bad—of the SABC, but I think he must discuss the next aspect now.

Mr Chairman, of course we received the annual report of the SABC, in which the administration of the SABC was dealt with in detail. That is why I feel that I must discuss it.

Order! We are now discussing the Bill as such, and not the annual report.

Mr Chairman, if we now look at the amending Bill … [Interjections.] I do not know what hon members are laughing at.

We are laughing at a clown.

Today we have held many discussions on the SABC, and I shall tell hon members why we do not support the Bill. We are not going to support it because it is clearly apparent from this report that the management of the SABC is totally incompetent. They are totally incompetent.

At the beginning of this report their mission is discussed. What is their mission? It is to take note of and adapt to the changing demands of the day. [Interjections.] Hon members must wait a moment. I am quoting in part from the annual report:

We now come to the point of what is in the interests of the country. In this House we are soon going to go over to a situation in which the Blacks will also have a say in the central Government. [Interjections.] According to its mission and philosophy, is the evening broadcast of Die Stem by die SABC going to meet the needs of the Blacks, who consider Nkosi sekelele iAfrika to be their national anthem? [Interjections.]

Wait a moment! Hon members must remember that irreconcilable situations exist, and this Director-General says in this report that he will inform and satisfy all these groups. He wants to satisfy them. That is impossible! One cannot do it. He, and he alone, decides what is and what is not in the interests of the country. [Interjections.]

I now want to discuss a few other matters. Let us just look at the appointments, for example. I am continuing to quote from the annual report, where the Director-General says the following about the philosophy of the SABC:

Very well, in some respects we have no fault to find with this. But in the annual report reference is also made to “ethical and community norms” which will be “respected”. What are my ethical norms …?

You do not have ethnical norms. [Interjections.]

What are my ethical norms in comparison with the ethical norms of the Zulus, for example? In the White community a young lady may not walk about with the upper part of her body naked, but in the Black community she may do so. What is that hon brother, Adriaan Eksteen, going to do in such a case? [Interjections.] What is he going to do about that? [Interjections.] These are the kind of problems which crop up and, after all, they broadcast on the same channel.

We then come to the next excerpt. I am quoting:

Thus far not one of these intentions have come to fruition.

I now come to the matter of the staff. A while ago I referred to what had become of the staff members of the old SABC. Let us take the example of—and let us mention these people’s names—Pieter de Bruyn. Why did they get rid of a talented man like that—there are others too—so soon? Why was Moira Tuck, who was an official of the SABC, dismissed and replaced by freelance workers, for example people who work for an hour or two in the Prime Time studio? Let us mention the names in this regard while we are at it, viz Martin Locke and Dorianne Berry. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am very grateful that I am not one of the Hansard reporters who has to transcribe the speech made by the hon member for Langlaagte. [Interjections.] I am even more grateful that I am not one of the faithful readers of Hansard who may have to read that speech in future. It was bad enough to have to listen to it.

The hon member for Langlaagte referred to Dr Andreas van Wyk and said that he had “inverted commas” around his ears. It seems to me this hon member’s “inverted commas” are between his ears. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North who spoke before him, made a speech here which I think we should take cognisance of—because it comes from those quarters, we should in fact take grateful cognisance of it. It does not often happen that one of those hon members devotes a whole speech to an aspect which would have caused the hon members of the CP—if they had still been sitting on this side of the House as they did four years ago—to have shouted “hear! hear!” and to have taken grateful cognisance of. I therefore want to thank the hon member, as a non-Afrikaans-speaking person, sincerely for sparing the time to express appreciation for the language and for everything that is being done for Afrikaans, also by the SABC.

Hear, hear!

I now want to come back to the hon member for Langlaagte. In conclusion he referred to the case of Miss Moira Tuck. The hon member for Sasolburg also devoted a large part of his speech to that subject. These hon members should at least take cognisance of the fact that she was reinstated in her job in compliance with an Industrial Court order.

Why was that necessary?

Yes, why was it necessary?

Would the hon members not first please listen to the point I am trying to make? I shall return in a moment to the reasons why it was necessary. [Interjections.] It was necessary for her to be reinstated because the SABC had adopted the wrong procedure.

Yes, but why was it necessary for her to have recourse to the Industrial Court?

Anyone who has been wronged, has a right to legal recourse. That was in fact the procedure Miss Tuck adopted and she was put in the right. I concede that the SABC made a mistake by dismissing her, and the Industrial Court confirmed this. The issue here is not the merits of the case, but the method.

Why is she not on Prime Time? [Interjections.]

May I complete my point? What I am trying to tell the hon members is that she was put in the right by a body, the Industrial Court, which they opposed when it was established by this Parliament.

No, that is not true.

Of course it is so. [Interjections.] Hon members of the CP were totally opposed to the whole legal systems being restructed, although the hon members did support certain clauses of the legislation.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is aware that despite the fact that the Industrial Court judgement was in her favour, Miss Tuck was not reinstated by the SABC?

I am aware that she did not resume her duties, but she is on the payroll and they are obliged to remunerate her in terms of the contract. The dispute is in progress and they are engaged in negotiations and legal proceedings. This case is actually sub judice and I therefore do not want to say anything further about its merits. The point is that the Industrial Court ruled in her favour on a point which was basically taken in limine of the entire proceedings.

She was not reinstated.

I want to come back to a second aspect. It is in connection with the refrain from the CP and the PFP that the SABC presentations are unbalanced and biased and that its entire editorial policy is completely unacceptable and unfair. I think hon members said the SABC was biased and unbalanced, but they did not tell us what they understood balance to mean. I should like to ask the hon member for Langlaagte whether he maintains that Die Patriot is a balanced publication.

Yes.

Of course. [Interjections.]

The hon member says of course it is. Must we conclude from that that if they were to come to power and they had the power to determine the SABC’s editorial policy, we would have to see and hear that “balanced” viewpoint of Die Patriot on the SABC day in and day out?

You do not understand. [Interjections.]

The hon members have certain preferences as a result of their own bias. If the editorial policy and the whole viewpoint of Die Patriot is not reflected by the SABC, the SABC is biased and unbalanced.

In other words the one is a party organ and the other is a State institution.

In other words the one is a state institution and if one were to take over the Government, would the State institution then have to adopt Government policy?

Those are simply Malan methods now.

I do want to add something about balance to this debate. I am of the opinion that during the past year or so the SABC broadened the scope of its actuality programmes and news presentations considerably and started giving us a far better and more balanced presentation—more balanced in the true sense of the word. However, we must not look for balance in every single programme. That is not what balance means. One cannot put across a balanced view in every programme. One should look at all the programmes over a longer period of time because one programme will reflect one aspect and another programme another, but in general a community should also be reflected in the presentation of news and current affairs. [Interjections.]

Having said that, there is nevertheless, as far as I am concerned—in this regard I want to make an appeal to the SABC—the shortcoming that a large spectrum of our politics is not reflected in its presentations. On the basis of TV presentations the average viewers could form the opinion that the focus of politics lie somewhere between a CP-HNP-AWB alliance and an “NP-sell out idea”—as seen from a CP point of view. It could seem as though this covered the entire political spectrum and I think in fact that the White viewer is of the opinion that the choice for the future lies between the NP and the CP only and that all other political viewpoints fall within this spectrum.

The CP, HNP and AWB lie to the right of our political spectrum, but because the NP occupies more or less middle-of-the-road position in terms of our total political spectrum, the thoughts and aspirations, especially those of Black politics, are never broadcast in the practical sense of the word.

If anything is lost as a result of a presentation which is indeed unbalanced, it is only the NP that stands to lose. I say this because there appears to be no alternative choice except between the CP and the HNP. If the debate is concentrated on this all the time, the NP stands to lose, but in a broader sense the country also stands to lose because viewpoints which are more to the left or more progressive—I am not referring to party-politics, but to Black extra-parliamentary viewpoints—are not being reflected. [Interjections.]

I want to appeal to the SABC to see whether they cannot rectify this matter. Although I do not have much opportunity to watch television, I have noticed attempts being made to reflect extra-parliamentary political ideas, but they are so often shot down by the same person who expressed them. I request that these ideas should be expressed properly and that they should also be debated.

In the beginning the SABC will have great difficulties in finding exponents of schools of thought from extra-parliamentary politics to express their points of view, but if they can in the meantime find other people who are willing to express and discuss such views, they may perhaps regain enough legitimacy in Black politics for those standpoints to be expressed.

Having said all this, I want to qualify it very clearly by saying that the issue here is no the politics of violence. I fully endorse the premise that the politics of violence should not be presented, propagated or even debated. I do not think that it is meaningful in any way to consider it.

I want to return to the Bill. I should rather have said, with all due respect, Sir, that I am only starting on it now. I want to associate myself with what the hon member for Springs said before this debate was last adjourned. He was saying that there was a need for a continuous Christian radio service. I should like to associate myself with him and because he is not here today—he has asked to be excused—I want to express a few ideas on his behalf in which I shall not only refer specifically to the SABC, but also to the hon the Deputy Minister.

Representations are regularly made to the SABC for a Christian radio service.

Go ahead and read them out, Wynand!

Since that hon member is so kind, I am first going to read out the points of the hon member for Springs and I shall then proceed to the point I want to make.

We want the hon member for Springs, not you!

This does not imply that the SABC is neglecting its duty. It broadcasts many religious programmes, for example church services. More than 100 complete church services are broadcast directly every year and there are more than 1 000 programmes of a religious nature. The issue is not the attention given to these programmes, but a continuous Christian radio service for which there is indeed a need, a kind of Gideon’s Bible of the air. That is the concept which the hon member for Springs asked me to put across here.

Clause 2 of the Bill proposes an amendment to Section 11 of the principal Act. This permits the SABC to undertake a certain service for or on behalf of others. The hon the Deputy Minister may be aware of the representations that have been made to the SABC. To date the problem has been limited frequencies and we are also aware of the fact that frequencies have been allocated to the independent states, although at this stage certain frequencies are still being held in reserve for use by national states when they are in fact independent. I do not know whether these could be put to use in the meantime or whether other arrangements could be made, but because the SABC actually has a monopoly as a result of legislation of this Parliament, and which is also administered by the executive, I want to make an appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister on behalf of the hon member for Springs to become personally involved in these appeals and to see whether they can be accommodated.

Sir, I want to thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate and also that you permitted me to participate beyond the framework of the Bill, and I should like to say that I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I just want to tell the hon member who has just taken his seat, that we have never opposed the principle of an Industrial Court. We supported it, but the hon member for Brakpan has reminded me that what we did in fact object to, was the fact that the Industrial Court proceedings function has become too expensive for the very people who want to have recourse to the Industrial Court. I shall leave this aspect at that.

I obviously did not understand the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North to have said what the hon member for Randburg understood him to have said. Perhaps it is because they are spiritually closer to each other, in fact they are really spiritual brothers and move exactly on the same frequency, that I understood the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North differently to the way in which his brother in the NP understood him.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North spoke of Afrikaans being forced down people’s throats.

No, surely that was a quote.

Yes, it was a quote which the hon member made with permission.

And with support!

You were sleeping, Tom!

Whether I was sleeping or whether I was awake, is none of the hon member’s business. [Interjections.]

The hon member does not have any manners!

As far as my sleeping is concerned, I just want to tell the hon member that the hon Chief Whip of Parliament slept so soundly one day while the former Prime Minister was speaking, that his arm slipped off the bench giving him quite a start. [Interjections.] I have also seen Ministers, Whips, Chief Whips and other hon members sleeping, and that is the least of the failings of the hon members on the other side. [Interjections.] When I was on that side and sat sleeping, I observed much more of their scheming and wangling than they are aware of … [Interjections.] A clergyman spoke to the President about the matter of my sleeping. The clergyman told him: “Man, PW, if you can do as much when you are awake as Tom Langley does when he is asleep, then you could be proud of yourself”. [Interjections.] He said that to the State President; not to me. [Interjections.]

†I want to tell the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South that the equality of the two official languages in this country has been accepted for a long time, and should be left as it is. It is for me as an Afrikaner to ensure jealously that the equal position of my language is maintained at all times, especially by Government and semi-Government institutions. It is the right and duty of my English-speaking neighbour to do exactly the same as far as his mother-tongue is concerned. [Interjections.]

What worries and upsets me is the arrogant contempt with which Afrikaners and their cultural cause are regarded by certain members of the Government, like the hon the Minister of Finance. I would suggest to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South that he let sleeping dogs lie. We shall deal with the hon the Minister of Finance at a later stage. [Interjections.]

*As far as the hon member for Benoni who spoke earlier on in the debate is concerned, let me say that one always listens to his contributions in this House and weighs them up against the fact that one is aware of his exceptional skill in the technique of montage, which enables one to change with a snip of a pair of scissors the nature, meaning and entire content of a document.

The hon member referred to the fact that we tried to circumvent the proceedings of the standing committee by not opposing the Bill at that stage in the standing committee. I want to refresh the hon member’s memories by telling him that it was the CP member, the PFP member and the Coloured member in the standing committee who were equally vehement in their objections, for example, against the powers of expropriation which the hon the Minister originally wanted to incorporate into this Act for the SABC. It was those members who prevented further bureaucratic powers from being given to an institution such as the SABC.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North said the CP had no newspaper support. The hon member was quite right, we have no newspaper support and we certainly do not have any SABC or television support either. In spite of that, however, the CP is growing phenomenally. [Interjections.]

One does after all grow in one’s sleep.

The CP has grown to such an extent that Martin Spring wrote in The Star of 17 April that there is alarm in the NP because “their public opinion pollsters” tell them that they are in danger of no longer being the majority party in this House after the next election. [Interjections.] This is not what I am saying; this is what Martin Spring says that party’s public opinion pollsters tell them. He also says that this will happen as a result of the phenomenal growth of the CP, not just amongst Afrikaansspeaking members, but also amongst English-speaking members. [Interjections.] What proof do we have of this? It is purposefully being kept quiet by the National Press and by the Perskor group in Transvaal, as well as by the radio and TV in an attempt to try and keep that information away from the people.

We know how we are growing—I say this to the hon member for Bloemfontein North—in spite of the fact that we do not have press support. We win by-elections at the municipal level, as for example in Phalaborwa where we won a municipal by-election by 197 votes to 76 in the hon the Minister of Manpower’s powerful stronghold. We have for all practical purposes now made a clean sweep in all the elections of management councils in the Northern Transvaal. [Interjections.] We also know how well the CP is faring in the Cape these days, and they know it too.

Order! The hon member must confine himself more specifically to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I shall leave it at that. [Interjections.] The hon member for Bloemfontein North is one of those people who, when he rises to speak about flowers, first has to dwell at length on the CP. He always has to do that first, because it is his little formula, but it does not seem to me as if that formula is helping him in any way, because he makes no headway. It is very clear that he is so panic-stricken about the CP, that it is simply unbelievable. I now leave him at that.

I am sorry to say that the SABC-TV is probably the most hated medium in this country today.

Perhaps amongst you lot, yes.

I have here a copy of a letter that someone in East London sent to our party. I doubt whether he belonged to the CP when he wrote the original letter.

What letterhead is that?

This is merely a little covering note under which the secretary of my head office sent me the letter. [Interjections.] This letter of which he sent me a copy, was addressed to the State President.

Who is the writer?

The writer is a Mr J S Knoesen of East London. When I read the original letter …

He is probably a Hertzog supporter.

… I think he was probably still a supporter of the NP when he wrote the letter.

He is probably a Hertzog supporter!

I do not know if he is a Hertzog supporter, or what he is. But I do just want to read to hon members what he wrote. He writes to the State President …

Order! The hon member is going to read that letter. I do not know what is written in it. On which clause in the Bill under discussion does that letter have a bearing?

Mr Chairman, I can apply this letter to virtually every clause of the Bill under discussion.

Order! I do not want to interrupt the hon member. The hon member may proceed. He must relate that letter to some or other clause of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, clause 2 has bearing on this. Clause 2 adds in a new paragraph (d) after section 11 of the principal Act, and it reads as follows:

Furthermore clause 3 of the Bill has bearing on this. Clause 3(a) substitutes paragraph (h) of subsection (1) of Section 13 of the principal Act and reads as follows:

Order! I accept the hon member’s assurance. He may continue to read the letter.

As you wish, Mr Chairman. As I have already indicated, the writer of this letter directs his correspondence to the State President. I quote from it, as follows:

This is the trend of this letter. After a month he sent a copy of the letter to us, because the State President then referred the letter to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who in turn referred it to the Director-General, because, and I quote what he wrote:

Listen Tom, send a copy of that to Morrie as well!

I shall also send Morrie a copy.

Thank you very much. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, this is apparently what was written to this Mr Knoesen. He is fact also includes a copy of this letter. Now it is of course interesting— and while this point is being discussed, one should perhaps just refer to this as well— that in Die Vaderland of Wednesday, 23 April 1986 under the heading “So sorg SAUK vir halwe waarheid”, a whole series of quotes are given from a memorandum which this newspaper has got hold of—a memorandum originating from the SABC. Let me briefly quote a few items from the aforementioned report:

Then, at the end of the second last column, the following paragraph beings, and I once again quote:

That is now the hon the Minister, who according to an official piece of correspondence from the SABC to the public, does not have the powers to interfere with the way in which programmes of the SABC are dealt with. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, since the founding of the Conservative Party we have tried in a reasonable and fair way to get the SABC to maintain a balance as far as possible in its political presentations, and to convey them in a representative and objective way.

The hon member for Randburg, who tried to express himself on objectivity and lack of bias, is no longer in the House.

No, he is sitting over there. He is chatting to Roelf!

Oh, he is wandering around now! Yes, Mr Chairman, he is a very restless hon member of this House, who is very seldom in his seat, and who moves around quite a lot. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, as I have indicated, we have tried to persuade the SABC to be balanced in its activities. We have held discussions with the Director General of the SABC, as well as with his deputy. We have spoken with the top management and with two chairmen of the board. We have got into touch with their complaints department, but let me tell hon members that it is a futile exercise to try and talk to the SABC. It is hopeless.

For the benefit of the hon member, I now want to mention an example of the SABC’s so-called objectivity or lack of bias, as he calls it. I have here a transcript of a broadcast of the SABC, which reads as follows:

This report mentions groups of the radical left and radical right, and when it speaks of the leftists, the ANC, the UDF, Azapo and others are mentioned. As an example of the radical right, the CP is mentioned. The report goes on to state the following:

That was Kobus Bester in Durban. I therefore want to tell the hon member for Randburg that that is an example of the SABC’s so-called objectivity. I therefore ask him now: Is this an objective report, or not? [Interjections.] I see he remains silent.

The SABC, in spite of all our objections, continues, unhindered, playing the one single role which it does play in this country, ie of being “His Master’s Voice” to the Government.

To tell the truth, the conclusion I have arrived at is that by talking to the SABC-TV, we give them a kind of status of credibility and that in the process they make fools of us.

As far as the sessions they request are concerned, they in any case already have the same value as a Hyde Park comer speech, as I was saying.

In our discussions with the SABC we have for example, objected in the past to the fact that a special statement made by our leader last year had been ignored. I think it was a statement which followed on one made by the State President. We complained to the SABC, and do hon members know what the explanation for it was? They said that that report—on our leader’s statement—was the last report of the evening and that just before the second last report ended, the telex machine broke down.

And so the people in Johannesburg did not know that there was another report which had to come through, and the people on the other side did not know that that last report had not gone through to Johannesburg. That is the explanation we were given.

That is original.

Yes, I agree with the hon member, it is quite an original kind of explanation.

*As far as the ghost images were concerned, in which the logos of the CP and the HNP were intermittently flashed in the background as the terrorist flames were burning we were told by way of explanation that it was a case of the cameras in the studio being accidentally directed at that given moment on those particular logos. I do not think there were other news reports that evening in which the CP’s logo and the HNP’s flag appeared. One therefore has to accept that if it were in fact accidental, those logos must be on display there virtually permanently. But our expert information is that something like that cannot happen by accident. [Interjections.]

How does the SABC-TV explain the news report which, if I remember correctly, was broadcast somewhere around the Easter Recess at approximately 22h30—on Radio Jakaranda—which dealt with the State President’s statement on Munsieville?

Munsieville? But you are pronouncing it strangely! [Interjections.]

Yes, Munsieville. Thank you for correcting my pronunciation.

According to the news report the State President made his statement after a petition bearing about 11 000 signatures was handed to him by Mr Leon Wessels, the MP for Krugersdorp. [Interjections.] Surely that is a flagrant lie! [Interjections.] Sir, you yourself were a witness of what happened when the hon member for Lichtenburg brought a petition to this House.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member if he is aware of the fact that the matter was put right in the following news reports?

No, I am not aware of it. I listened to the news report at 22h30, and did not hear the correction. If it was put right, that is fine.

He then went to sleep!

Yes, but that is also an old story. They make the mistake and then correct it afterwards.

Yes, that is right. They correct it when nobody is listening. It is a good thing that the hon member for Umhlanga has pointed this out, because I think we mentioned it to the SABC when we held a meeting with them. They did not tell us then that there had been a correction.

Now that is a very good interjection that the hon member for Umhlanga has made. It is certainly a fact that the SABC sometimes just to give the impression of publicity to something, also broadcasts certain things said by the CP members, PFP members or NRP members on the last news. If someone enquires why something has not been broadcast, they say it was in fact broadcast during the late news. That is when most people are sleeping! [Interjections.] In the meantime one sometimes has to look at the biggest load of rubbish during the peak viewing times! [Interjections.]

I found it strange that the hon member for Bloemfontein North had such lofty praise for the co-operation between the Nasionale Pers, SAAN, the Argus group and Perskor. [Interjections.] I want to remind the hon member that we are witnessing an event in this country today which the late Mr John Vorster once warned us against in the caucus. What he said amounted to the fact that he shuddered at the thought of the day when there would be an alliance between the English and the Afrikaans capital resources in this country. [Interjections.] He said he shuddered at the thought of that day because they would then hound us until we were breathless.

Let me tell hon members on that side of the House that they have allowed the Press groups—the English and the Afrikaans Press—to get a stranglehold on them. In Mr Vorster’s time we would not even allow SAAN and the Argus group to amalgamate. These Press groups are chasing that party now, and they are going to hound the NP until nothing remains of it. [Interjections.] The SABC-TV is really the property of the people of South Africa. It belongs to the people of South Africa. We are in favour of a service for every population group in this country, with its own time set aside for it, in the same way as there is an exclusive service for the Blacks in this country. We are in favour of every people being able to look after its own interest in their own time and on their own channel, or on a shared channel.

That is to say 13 channels. [Interjections.]

Why not? Why should they not be able to see to their own interests?

Due to practical problems.

Strange, in the day when we had leaders with a will to stabilise the White people and to maintain its sovereignty, we never drew back from practical problems—we made challenges of those problems and over came them. [Interjections.]

The attempts at pithiness of the hon members on that side of the House are so boring. Those are the infantile reactions one receives from a little choir on the other side of this House. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude. This service should serve all people in an impartial and unbiased way. Now we are again heading for either a referendum or an election. If we hold a referendum now, I do not know if we shall ever get round to an election, but let us just hope that we shall have an election one day. I now want to challenge the SABC through its hon Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, to give all parties an equal chance to inform the voters of South Africa of the implications of what they are going to be asked to vote yes or not about in a future referendum, or on the policy implications if they are going to be asked to vote in a general election. [Interjections.] The hon members and the SABC know that the CP, on a proportional basis, ought to get the same amount of time, or equal time. As far as we are concerned, we only ask for 25% of equal time, and we shall show hon members how we put the NP to flight. That is our challenge. The period of time we are asking for can also be given to the PFP, the NRP, and the HNP. We do not demand it only for ourselves; we demand it in a fair way for all parties. [Interjections.]

We accept that the NP in any case also uses its Ministers to broadcast party political propaganda during ministerial time. We are only asking for equal time in a referendum and an election, during which we can also say what we want to have as regards the propagation of different standpoints in the country. We ask for time to inform voters on the implications of what they are going to be voting for.

The hon member for Randburg spoke of lack of bias, subjectivity and so forth. The hon member for Brakpan said that there should be an ombudsman. We do not want to say that we should decide what is unbiased or subjective, but are we not prepared to subject ourselves to the decisionmaking abilities of Government lackeys on what is subjective and unbiased either. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, we have come a long way with this piece of legislation which, by its nature, is such that one can digress quite far afield as far as criticism of the SABC is concerned.

I do want to thank all the hon members though—there were 17 speakers—for their contribution and also for the fact that they took the trouble of contributing to this debate. According to their merits some of the arguments were very good and some very bad. Be that as it may, the arguments concerning the SABC covered a very wide field. In the time at my disposal, of course, it is going to be quite impossible for me to reply to all the questions and criticism. Nevertheless I want to assure hon members that we shall do our best. The officials of the SABC will make a thorough study of the Hansard of all the hon members who contributed to the debate, and where there is any merit in specific proposals or ciriticism, attention will be given to it. I can give hon members that assurance.

I think we are agreed that many of the arguments were of a purely political nature and therefore have already been discussed by the hon the Minister during the debate on his Vote. Wherever it is relevant, however, we shall touch upon those arguments again.

†I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the standing committee as well for the very thorough manner in which they approached their work in the standing committee. They were unanimous on certain aspects, namely the deletion of the original clause 4; after due consideration, the committee decided that that was the most appropriate and the best thing to do.

The fact that both the CP and the PFP changed their stances after the standing committee had come to a unanimous decision in support of this Bill, is of course an internal problem for those two parties. It does, however, suggest one of two things: Either those parties have no confidence in their representatives on the standing committee; or there is such a paucity of communication and understanding of the principles and policies in those two parties that they found it necessary later on to reverse their decision. That, however, is something those two parties will have to work out for themselves. It is nevertheless an interesting phenomenon that …

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

On this aspect, certainly.

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Deputy Minister aware of the fact that in this case, as in many other cases, I had not received that legislation when I walked into that room? The officials are aware of this; the committee clerk knew about it.

I am not aware of the hon member’s personal problem, but I do know that the legislation was indeed available to all those hon members who took the trouble to get hold of it.

That is not really what I am talking about now. I am merely saying that it is the problem of each party to decide for himself whether it wishes to change the standpoint which its members adopted on the standing committee when the matter is debated in this House. Nevertheless I think it is a poor show if a party changes its standpoint in this way, because it indicates that there is either a lack of communication and understanding among the members, or that they had no confidence in the members who represented the party on the standing committee.

†The hon member for Berea—he does not appear to be in the House, unfortunately— stated on behalf of the Official Opposition…

He is in Durban.

He is at the Indaba.

Oh, he is at the Indaba. Good. I am sure he will be making quite a useful contribution there as well. [Interjections.] As I was saying, the hon member for Berea indicated in his second reading speech that the PFP would be voting against the Second Reading. They have, in fact, tabled an amendment to that effect.

The hon member indicated that the party’s objection was based primarily on the fact that the SABC, because of the provisions in this amending Bill, will now be able to enter the private sector via the sale of visual and audio recordings. In fact, when one looks at the amendment—this is just to refresh hon members’ memories—one will also recall that the Official Opposition were not ad idem with us in respect of the question of tax relief for the SABC. The PFP subsequently proposed the following (Hansard: House of Assembly, 12 March 1986, cols 1917-1918):

I think the PFP is making a very serious mistake in its interpretation of the provisions of this amending Bill and what its effect will be on the SABC in respect of the wider powers granted to it here. Hon members of the CP also offered this argument at one stage or the other for voting against the Bill.

I would like to draw the attention of hon members to the following facts. This Bill allows the establishment of an organisation such as M-Net which allows the printed media through a consortium to participate in the screening of television programmes in which they will have a vested interest. The broadcast will be done by the SABC but any profit made from the difference between income and expenditure for that network will accrue to the newspapers. The SABC considered it the right and proper thing to do to extend this facility to the printed media because of the so-called inroads that the electronic media had made on the advertising revenue in South Africa. We had complaints from many of the newspapers that they were suffering financially because of the effects of television on this particular market.

During all this time cognisance was taken of the fact that the SABC is the only one that has the technical facilities and the legal status to be able to broadcast programmes as such. Why hon members go wrong in their argument is because they lose cognisance of the fact that the SABC’s activities are very closely regulated by section 13 read in conjunction with section 11 of the Broadcasting Act. The Act states that the SABC is only entitled to broadcast programmes, and a whole list of things which it can do in terms of broadcasting is given.

The major point of my reply to hon members of the Official Opposition who offered this as a reason for voting against the Bill is that the SABC is not going into competition with the retail industry which provides video and sound recordings to the public. However, what the SABC is going to do and what we are enabling it to do is to sell to the retail sector excess or other programmes which at the moment it is prohibited from doing. I want again to give hon members an example which I mentioned originally in my second reading speech.

You do not want to pay tax on your profits.

I will come to the tax part. Let me just correct the misconception those hon members have of what the SABC is going to do. It is not going to compete with the retail industry and the private sector in marketing this to the public. It is not its business and it cannot do it in terms of the main Act. However, what it can do— this is the difference—is to dispose of programmes to the retail sector for consideration. It will be able to do that in terms of this amending Bill. The reason why we want to do so is to make these available to the retail industry so that they can also participate in the distribution of very good programmes.

It is very charitable.

No, it is not charitable at all. It is good business.

You do not want to pay tax.

I will come to the tax part.

Let me give the hon member the reasons again why the SABC decided to do this. Many of the programmes which it purchases overseas come in a package form. There are three or four different programmes which are packaged together and if one wants one of those one has to buy the whole package. Very often two out of the three programmes are not suitable for broadcasting by the TV network of the SABC. Therefore one sits with two thirds of the programmes that one cannot use.

Why is that?

That is the way they are marketed overseas. If we can build up our own production units—which is another good reason for supporting this Bill—we will be less dependent on overseas programmes and will be able to utilise our own at a very great cost reduction. Now the SABC will be able to dispose of those unused, unwanted programmes which one is forced to buy in a package. We can recover some of our cash there. These programmes will be made available to organisations such as M-Net so that they can purchase them from us to use in their programmes.

The second point I want to stress is that local productions such as Chaka Zulu, which was referred to earlier on, can now be sold by the SABC in order to capitalise on the fact that they have a magnificent production. [Interjections.] Now they are prohibited in terms of the main Act from disposing of that particular programme. If we are going to increase our production facility of many of these programmes by better utilisation of local talent, we must capitalise on that by selling them externally or internally for the benefit of the SABC which ultimately will be to the benefit of the whole production of local programmes. That makes very good sense.

I cannot understand why the PFP is voting against it because they fear that the SABC will compete with the retail industry. It will not. What they are doing by voting against it is preventing the development of a local TV industry for the production of programmes. We will then remain largely dependent on overseas people from whom we have to buy many programmes that we do require.

I come now to the question of taxation. I want to make it quite clear that tax relief is only available to the SABC and not to any partnership which it may enter into. In that sense the PFP’s concern that the SABC will compete unfairly with private enterprise partners or organisations from the retail sector is fallacious because it is based on the first argument they had, namely that the SABC would compete with private enterprise. It will not. It merely enables the SABC to dispose of programmes which it does not want.

I certainly hope that the PFP will reconsider their attitude towards this Bill and that they will possibly withdraw their amendment or at least ignore it when it is put to the House.

The PFP’s arguments are fallacious and not to the advantage of the very objective which they seek to achieve namely greater privatisation and greater profitably for the SABC with greater funds available to stimulate local production and the utilisation of local talent. The PFP is voting against all this. I would, however, like to thank the PFP for that part of the Bill which they do support, namely the staggered licencing year which makes very good sense as well as their support for the concept of the M-Net entry by the printed media to the electronic media.

There is not doubt in anybody’s mind that television is the most powerful media for communicating with mankind, and newspapers cannot compete with that. The history of newspapers overseas shows that although they do not all vanish from the scene it is the very large and specialised operation of national newspapers which survives. I do see, however, that the trend in South Africa is now towards the regionalisation of smaller newspapers which are very cost-effective. They are not even sold on the street but live off their advertising revenue. It is nevertheless a fact that the national and large dailies cannot compete with the electronic media.

The hon member for Berea mentioned the fact that this Bill would reduce the monopoly of the SABC. In a certain sense I suppose he is correct in that the SABC still retains the sole right to broadcast these programmes technically but one can have partners in the profitable schemes. The hon member together with other hon members also asked how far the negotiations have gone between the SABC and M-Net in terms of an agreement. I want to tell those hon members that the negotiations are still continuing at this moment. It is a complex question. The M-Net organisation itself has many questions that it wants to ask. The first near agreement fell on hard times as did the second. I want to tell hon members that no agreement has so far been reached.

*The hon member for Brakpan asked why such an agreement, if there should be one, is not tabled here in Parliament so that we can debate the merits of the case. Surely the hon member knows that this is not a requirement in terms of the Act. Iscor and Escom do not do this, and thy are organisations that are controlled by the same type of legislation.

Two wrongs do not make a right!

No, one cannot argue in that way. We cannot interfere in the daily administration of the SABC. We determine the norms and the standards by means of the legislation.

They are a hated organisation!

Now those hon members want to discuss the particulars of the administration of the SABC here in Parliament, but one cannot do that.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister? He is asking this House to approve of the steps the SABC is taking in connection with that agreement, but how can this House do that if the agreements are not open to inspection by its members?

It is not necessary and it is not prescribed by the Act that this House must approve of them. That is the difference. It is not necessary and it is not required by the Act. That is the main point. [Interjections.] It is not a requirement. Why should it be a requirement? We are dealing only with the legislation which determines the limitations and the objectives of the SABC. That is not an argument.

We want local option!

We thank the PFP for their positive suggestions—I am referring now to the hon member for Berea—for the improvement of TV. However I think they are quite wrong to oppose this legislation, and I do not think their amendment is necessary at all, because of the reasons I have given them.

I come now to the hon member for Bloemfontein North. I want to thank him very sincerely for the very positive and enlightening speech he made. The hon member pointed out that we had a free Press in South Africa. The newspapers are free to do whatever they like. They are not regulated by this department, nor are they responsible to us. They are responsible only to their shareholders, and they can write and do what they like. I think this is a very important point of which hon members should take cognisance. The SABC is controlled by legislation of this House, but the newspapers are free to do what they like, within the limitations of the general Act. I think hon members should take cognisance of this fact.

The hon member also said that the electronic media was facing great challenges. He was quite correct. He also said that subscription TV would also be to the benefit of the consumer.

The hon member for Umhlanga complained, and one of the arguments he raised was that he had a wide choice of newspapers which he could buy, in contrast to radio and TV. He complained a great deal about the SABC because he said he had no choice. Yet I should like to tell the hon member that the whole intention of this legislation is to give him a better TV service, with extended channels. He will therefore have a better choice, and if he does not like one programme, he can switch over to another. When the M-Net comes into operation, the hon member will have an additional channel. As regards his argument that we do not have a wide choice, it is of course contrary to the intentions of this legislation, which is going to expand that choice. The hon member for Bloemfontein North pointed out that it would also be to the benefit of the consumer, provided one liked the type of programmmes that were going to be shown by the M-Net.

The hon member also touched upon a matter which many hon members raised here, and that was the question of equilibrium as regards the privileges and the treatment of English, Afrikaans and the other languages. The hon member pointed out that the English-and Afrikaans-language newspapers were for the first time co-operating in a positive sense. They had co-operated to make use of the electronic media, to the benefit of all the newspapers. I want to tell the hon members of the CP in particular, who were also opposed to the so-called conspiracy of the newspapers against the Afrikaners, that they missed the mark completely. In fact it is in the interest of the survival of the Afrikaansas well as the English-language newspapers that they had to form a partnership to use the electronic media to the benefit of the newspaper owners. If they had not co-operated, it would not have been possible to give them that benefit on a cost-effective basis.

The hon member for Soutpansberg did not do his arithmetic, because he will see that according to the available advertising it is impossible to afford all the various newspapers an opportunity to establish an M-Net on an economic basis. It just does not work like that, and it will simply not be economic. If they make a profit, that money will help to ensure the survival of the Afrikaans-as well as the English-language newspapers.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North also pointed out that there were advantages in the movement towards privatisation by the SABC. This is the beginning of a trend, and I hope it will be extended to the benefit of not only the consumer, but also of the SABC.

The hon member also replied very effectively to allegations that the SABC was being used for brainwashing purpose. He pointed out that 80% of the contents of what was being broadcast, was factual information. It is not brainwashing. All shades of opinion are being broadcast by the SABC. If one does not like the opinions and the attitudes that one hears on TV and the radio, one must not be annoyed at the SABC, but at the society of South Africa, because it is a reflection of the opinions of South African society. [Interjections.] The SABC does not spend its time conspiring over how much news coverage and time they are going to allocate to certain groups. That is not the procedure the SABC adopts. Its function is to reflect the realities of the South African society. [Interjections.]

If hon members of the CP perform poorly in society, the SABC can do nothing about it. [Interjections.] They receive many opportunities to state their standpoint, and one cannot hold the SABC responsible for their poor performance. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bloemfontein North also tounched upon a very important matter here. That is the role which the SABC, and particularly the TV, plays in the improvement of race relations in South Africa. This is of the utmost importance because society will in future be dependent upon better human interrelations. The issues we are concerned with here are society and better race relations. I really want to pay tribute here to the SABC for the part it is playing in the preservation of sound norms and standards in race relations. There is nothing the SABC does which gives one reason to accuse them of in fact inciting race hatred, as certain hon members in the CP are doing. Relations there are far better. [Interjections.]

The hon member also pointed out that in one week more than 30 million people watch SABC-TV. SABC-TV is market-orientated and market-dependent. It cannot stand aloof from its viewers and its listeners. [Interjections.] If the public was so dissatisrfied with the bias and the partiality of the SABC, why do the facts indicate that 30 million people watch SABC-TV every week? Why is that the case? [Interjections.] The entire population of South Africa is only 30 million people, and if so many people watch TV, there is something wrong with the views which people have in this world because it then means that 30 million people are watching something they disapprove of. I think the factual contents of those hon members’ argument are very poor. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bloemfontein North also pointed out that without the SABC people would have known less about the CP and the HNP, because they themselves admit that they do not have a newspaper. They had a newspaper, but it went bankrupt.

Who are you talking about now?

I am now talking about the CP’s newspaper, Die Patriot, which went bankrupt. [Interjections.]

You are bankrupt! Your brain is bankrupt!

Where are they still publishing the newspaper on a profitable basis?

I am publishing it on a profitable basis … [Interjections.]

Oh, it is profitable? I am glad to hear that …

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte must withdraw the words “The hon the Deputy Minister’s brain is bankrupt”.

Mr Chairman, I do not think his brain can become bankrupt. There is nothing in it. I withdraw what I said.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Deputy Minister made an allegation here in respect of newspaper that was bankrupt, while the newspaper is not bankrupt. The hon the Deputy Minister told an untruth here.

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

It seems to me the memories of those gentlemen are as short as their argument is lacking in merit. I want those hon members to deny that the original publishers of Die Patriot stopped printing and publishing that newspaper owing to a loss. The newspaper was then taken over and republished by the party. Is that a fact, or is it not? [Interjections.] Why did they then stop publishing the newspaper? Their memories are as defective as the merits of their argument.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister?

No, I shall come to the hon member for Sasolburg later, and if there is any time left, he can argue this matter then.

I want to thank the hon member for Bloemfontein North very sincerely for his positive contribution in the debate here, and also on the standing committee. [Interjections.]

I come now to the hon member for Walvis Bay, who gave an excellent historical survey of the activities of the SABC. He made a very sound analysis of the services at present being presented by the SABC, and of how important they were. He also pointed out— and this is very important—the educational task and function of the SABC. The hon member touched upon something here which is of the utmost importance to the whole of society, as well as to prosperity and peace in South Africa. If the SABC had enough money to be of assistance, as it is going to be, in the educational function of broadcasting, it is going to be to the advantage of all the population groups of South Africa and the whole country will benefit from this. I thank him for his instructive speech on this aspect. Hon members would do well to study his Hansard from time to time because in it a very effective analysis was given of the activities of the SABC.

The hon member also pointed out how effectively the overseas shortwave broadcasts of Radio RSA were being dealt with, and how many people were listening to them. Once again I want to set hon members of the CP straight. After all they created the impression here that the SABC was being supported by public finances approved by this Parliament. That is not so. That is simply not true. The only contribution this Parliament makes to the finances of the SABC is by way of certain amounts of money from the Department of Foreign Affairs, which are utilised for the shortwave broadcasting service to foreign countries. This has nothing whatsoever to do with internal broadcasting services. For the rest the SABC is totally dependent for its income on listeners’ licence fees and from its revenue from advertisements. Consequently the SABC is entirely commercially orientated. The 30 million television viewers per week demonstrate that the people are satisfied with the purchase of their television licences.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Brakpan for the tribute he paid to the SABC on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of that organisation. Other hon members also raised this aspect. We are also very proud of the fact that the SABC was able to celebrate its fiftieth year of service to South Africa with so many tributes and achievements. I think hon members ought to devote some time, now and again, to paying a visit to Auckland Park and having a look for themselves there in what an excellent way—technically and administratively—the SABC is being operated. Once again I congratulate the SABC on this. All of us therefore wish to say to the SABC that we hope the next 50 years will be as prosperous and excellent as the past 50 years.

Without an NP Government! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I now wish to comment on that great and irksome issue for the Conservative Party. I am referring to the so-called misuse of the broadcasting medium—the so-called partiality and bias of the SABC. Of course this is utter nonsense. It is based on generalisation and on completely insubstantial arguments. It is based on nothing except the opinions and the views of hon members of the CP. [Interjections.]

I challenge those hon members, Mr Chairman, to bring us objective proof of in what way the SABC is prejudiced.

But that is precisely what we did!

What other proof do you need? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to concur in what the hon member for Umhlanga said here earlier. He began his speech by saying that all media were biased. That is true. [Interjections.] Of course it is true, Mr Chairman. There is an element of bias in every public communication media because it is operated by people. There are norms and standards which are applicable if that bias were to be enercised. It is kept in check by a system which imposes certain restrictions on it. We must therefore focus attention on the question of whether the system is working effectively, within the framework of the limitations which should, in accordance with fair norms and standards, be imposed on that bias. [Interjections.]

†Mr Chairman, there is not a single mode of communication in the world, either television or radio or newspaper—in South Africa and in every other country—which does not contain an element of bias. What really counts, however, Sir, are two things. That bias is inherent in the society winch the media reflect. It is no good those hon members complaining that the National Party gets more time on television than all the other parties, or that hon Ministers get more time than they should be getting. Hon Ministers represent both the National Party and the Government. They are involved in all matters concerning the affairs of the State. We are dealing therefore with a reflection of the reality of society in South Africa. Nobody can deny that. [Interjections.]

The important point, however, is the following. Should the SABC in fact go beyond reasonable limits in the process of its reflecting the realities of the South African society, then we should give attention to the question of what methods or mechanisms there are to control the SABC in its alleged bias. It was often said by many people when Richard Nixon was taken to task in the USA in the early seventies and subsequently deposed as President: “Look how rotten the system is in the United States. Look at the kind of President they have produced. How could Richard Nixon get away with the misdemeanours which he committed?” What people forgot about, however, was that the system in the United States had found him out and put him out. That is, after all, what really counts, Sir—the checks and balances. The checks and the balances are what really count. [Interjections.]

Check number one, Sir, is the marketplace. The SABC, which is dependent on the market-place for its revenue, cannot go beyond that with which the majority of the people find acceptable. [Interjections.] The SABC cannot do that. The SABC cannot be profitable unless it has the support of the majority of the people on whom it is dependent. It is purely logical. [Interjections.] It is exactly the same in the case of political parties. The party that has the support of the majority of the voters finds itself on the governing side, and those with the minority support find themselves in opposition. The same applies in the case of the SABC. [Interjections.] The first check and balance for the SABC is the will of the people because the SABC cannot do without their advertising revenue, secondly listeners can refrain from renewing their licences. That is one of the finest checks and balances, Sir. [Interjections.] The free-market system is one of the finest checks and balances. People do not have to buy television licences. They do not have to buy television sets. [Interjections.]

Secondly, Mr Chairman, the next check and balance is the fact that the SABC is subject to legislation controlled by this House and it is accountable to this House for the way it conducts itself. It works within the framework of the main Broadcasting Act which hon members are amending here today. Moreover, the parameters, norms and standards within which it must operate, are determined by this House.

Thirdly, every member of Parliament here present is an ombudsman for the public. He can stand up here and have his say, and it will be carried out to the public. [Interjections.] They can get up on a public platform; they can write articles; they can complain to the newspapers that are not the friends of the SABC and put their case to them. [Interjections.] Every single hon member here is an ombudsman and they have the finest public platform in the world on which to air their views. If there is merit in their argument, the members of the public will listen to them.

*That is why I just want to say that the so-called abuse of the media as far as the SABC is concerned exists only in the minds of the hon members of the CP and others. [Interjections.] It is not so in practice, and if there is bias, it is a reflection of what occurs in society.

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

Yes, provided that it has to do with the argument at hand. It doesn’t? Well, perhaps the hon member will have an opportunity later on.

*I think hon members of the CP are going to raise this argument again during the Committee Stage, because we must have a Committee Stage, and I just want to tell them that this idea of an ombudsman is not going to work. It is simply not going to work and the hon member for Brakpan based his argument on the premise that an ombudsman is necessary to control the so-called bias of the SABC. I put it to the hon member, who is an educated man, that what he wants to do in respect of those three items I mentioned—those mechanisms for the control of the bias of the SABC, viz the market, Parliament and the fact that every man here is an ombudsman—is now, according to their policy, to give total power to one person in order to control the SABC. How can such powers be given to one person, who has to be biased to one side or the other, by means of which he is the sole arbiter of bias in the SABC? That argument does not hold water. If he has to be effective, we must give him tremendous powers by means of the Act, so that he himself can decide what should and should not be broadcast. [Interjections.] I ask the hon member: Is it fair to ask for that?

The Newspaper Press Union works like that.

No, it does not work like that. The hon member knows even less about the Newspaper Press Union than he knows about the SABC. Is that a fair suggestion to make, that one person should have such dictatorial powers, that he alone can determine what should and should not be broadcast? [Interjections.]

What about Riaan Eksteen? He has those powers now!

He does not have those powers. He can only determine the policy …[Interjections.]

Order! I have nothing before me at present dealing with an ombudsman. Perhaps the hon the Deputy Minister could proceed with another point.

Pardon?

It is not in order to discuss an ombudsman for whom there is no provision in the Bill.

Yes, Mr Chairman. It is going to come up in the Committee Stage and it was raised by the hon member for Brakpan. However, I am going to depart from that subject because the Whips tell me that we must make haste.

*I shall now come back to the other arguments put forward by hon members. The hon member proposed as an alternative to this legislation that we should transfer the SABC from the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Department of Education and Culture. How much more biased can one become? That is an own affair, which applies only to the Whites. [Interjections.] He now wants to take the whole of the SABC away from the other population groups, and place it in an own affairs portfolio. That is bias. If ever there was a case of partiality, that is it. The CP is now showing its real colours. It wants to seize control of the SABC for the Whites, who are a minority group. That is what want to do and it is demonstrated by the fact that they want to take it away from the general affairs portfolio of Foreign Affairs and put it into an own affairs portfolio. The public will have to condemn them as far as that statement of theirs is concerned.

That is all I want to say about the speech made by the hon member for Brakpan, and I shall now go on to the speech made by the hon member for Umhlanga.

Mr Chairman, I have been very patient but may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister, with regard to a point he made a little earlier about certain rights which the individual had, including the fact that he was entitled to withhold the payment of licence fees, whether he does not want to correct that statement? [Interjections.]

Sir, if the hon member possesses a television set and receives a signal, then he must pay his fee but nobody tells him that he must possess a TV set. [Interjections.] He can withhold his viewership as a consumer! However, one cannot have it both ways! [Interjections.] If he does not like the SABC, he does not have to listen to them. That was what I said.

Read your Hansard!

The hon member must go and have another look at it. I did say that one had the right to withhold one’s fee but that one could only do so if one did not have a TV set!

What is the alternative? [Interjections.]

One can thus choose not to make use of the services of the SABC. [Interjections.] I do not see why the hon member for Umhlanga is so concerned with that aspect. [Interjections.]

May I just say that despite the hon member’s heavy criticism of this Bill, I should like to thank the NRP for their support. At least in that way, they show very good sense! The hon member raised important questions regarding checks and balances and he expressed criticism of the SABC where he thought it was biased, but I want to give him the assurance that the SABC takes note of positive criticism. He may be able to claim some credit for the demise of the programme Kibbel/Quibble. I know he was not very happy with it. The SABC had already determined through market research that it was not a very profitable programme and had already decided to get rid of it and that it would go off the air once it was finished. [Interjections.] In that sense we thus agree.

The hon member for Umhlanga also supported the staggering of the renewal dates for licences. We thank him for that. He mentioned that the finest redress was to be able to get up here, as a member of Parliament, and to say what one wanted to. I thank the hon member for a good contribution to the debate, although I think in some respects his criticism was not very fair.

I think this debate is going to continue for quite a long time because I still have a number of members to answer. It was a long debate and I think, in all fairness, I should reply to the contributions of all the hon members who took part in it.

I should like to turn to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central who abused this Bill by attacking the English-speaking Afrikaner sector of the population of South Africa. I do not know whether he thinks he can achieve cheap political gain for himself in that way, but I do know that the public will judge him very harshly. He got up and had the temerity to criticise the SABC which gives impeccably fair treatment to both languages on a 50-50 basis. The time allocation for the two languages is identical.

Concerning the question of Afrikaansspeaking announcers speaking English with an accent and the fact that in his opinion English was not looked after by the SABC, I want to ask the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central—the hon member for South Coast also raised this in a previous debate— how many of the people in his constituency are Afrikaans-speaking. He must then tell those people how many speeches he made in Afrikaans in this House. I want to ask him how many speeches he has made in Afrikaans, while representing a constituency where my guess is that probably the majority of the voters are Afrikaans-speaking. I think he must take the beam out of his own eye before he tries to take the grain out of the eye of the SABC. I think it was a derogatory speech which is not worthy of further mention.

Attacking him does not solve the problem. Reply to his argument!

I think the hon member must learn that the public will not tolerate that kind of nonsense. [Interjections.] I can also list a whole string of English-speaking announcers who appear on SABC-TV alone who speak the language impeccably. There are very good English-speakers, and I do not have to mention them all. I could probably name 15 or more. [Interjections.] Sir, I can see that the hon members are still awake on the other side of the House! [Interjections.]

I want now to turn to the hon member for Benoni who tendered his apologies for not being able to be here now. He made some very good points. He said, for example, that in terms of cost the SABC beams its services at one of the lowest cost rates per capita anywhere in the world. He also complimented the SABC on its 50th anniversary. He gave us a very good insight into the whole argument of what is bias and what is not bias. I thank the hon member for Benoni for giving us that insight into that particular argument. I would like to recommend that hon members read his Hansard. He is a man who knows what he is talking about. He worked for the SABC for many years.

While we are on that point I would just like to say, in terms of the argument about Mrs Tuck, that it is sub judice; an appeal has been lodged by the SABC and I do not think we can discuss the merits or demerits of the case. However, factually I would just like to tell the hon member that she followed the right procedures. The hon member for Randburg indicated that this was the right of every employee, but hon members must take cognisance of the fact that she was a contract worker and was not on the permanent staff of the SABC. When the appeal has been heard, hon members will be able to judge the merits of the case on a far sounder basis than at the moment. [Interjections.]

Is the hon the Deputy Minister aware of the fact that the SABC requested that the procedures before the industrial court be held in private, and that the public had no access and still has not had any access to the proceedings? We only received the judgement, but we do not know what the details were. Does the hon the Deputy Minister know about this and is he prepared to comment on this very disgraceful fact? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I know what the descretionary powers of the industrial court are, but it is going on appeal and I am pretty certain that the Appeal Court proceedings will not be held in secret and the hon member can go and listen for himself and hear what is said at the Appeal Court proceedings. He can go and listen for himself. [Interjections.]

*I do not think we can argue this matter now, because it is sub judice, so we shall first have to leave it at that. [Interjections.]

I just want to add that an accusation was also made by the hon member for Brakpan against the television announcer Mr Olckers. In this connection he referred to a certain report, allegedly to the effect that the rightwingers were responsible for a certain bomb explosion. That case is at present being investigated by the Police, and I think we shall have to wait for the report and see what it says. We can then assess the merits of that case.

What did their report say?

The investigation is still in progress. We must wait until the Police have completed their investigation into the incident. Hon members can then decide whether it was right or wrong. It is no use forming an opinion on the case at this stage.

Is the hon the Deputy Minister aware that the Police stated that in their report to the SABC they had made no mention of right-wingers having participated in the incident?

I cannot reply on behalf of the Police or on behalf of Mr Olckers. I can only tell members that they must wait until the investigation has been completed, so that we can then decide whether that statement was right or wrong.

Why do you not wait until the investigation has been completed before you say things like that on television?

Mr Olckers made a statement, and we must now test that statement against the truth. We must test it against the truth, and we must see what happens then.

It was a disgraceful statement!

Hon members of the CP are again beginning to condemn things before they know the results. Their own bias is clearly apparent every time. [Interjections.]

†Then I should just like to say that we cannot go ahead of a police investigation. Hon members must wait and see whether they are right or wrong. [Interjections.] The SABC can take disciplinary action where a misdemeanour is committed by a staff member. They have the right disciplinary code for that, but we have to wait for the police investigation. [Interjections.]

I also want to come back to a statement that was made in respect of the movie, Chaka Zulu, and I want to point out to hon members that the following statement was issued by the SABC as long ago as 24 April 1986 in respect of Chaka Zulu, because I think there is a misconception of what it is all about. Certain newspaper reports are misleading the public into assessing that on an incorrect basis. I want to read the statement for hon members’ edification. This is a statement by the SABC:

I think the production of Chaka Zulu is an outstanding effort by the SABC to put South Africa on the television production map. Chaka Zulu is being shown in Cannes in France at the moment, and we hope it is going to find wide appeal. Hon members will be aware of the fact that the very outstanding movie made by Jamie Uys, The Gods Must Be Crazy, is still running to full houses in France—after five years. The Frenchmen like it. [Interjections.]