as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on Posts and Telecommunications.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I should like to say that it is a great privilege for me to be in charge of the Agriculture and Fisheries Vote here for the first time. As regards this task and the privilege which has fallen to my lot, my view is that of the Psalmist in Psalm 16—

On this occasion I should like to pay tribute once again to my celebrated predecessor and thank him for the years of service he gave this department, and for the monuments he has erected along the way.

You make a very nice speech.

We wish him every success in his new post of Minister of Transport Affairs. We trust he will ensure that agriculture is not burdened with high tariffs. Agriculture in South Africa is certainly not an easy and simplistic matter; it is a complex matter and subject to a number of uncontrollable variables such as climatic conditions. Droughts in particular are characteristic of the South African scene.

When one considers the agricultural potential of South Africa and its uncertainties, and if one bears in mind that South Africa is not a rich agricultural country, but in many respects a difficult agricultural country, one is compelled to say that the people involved in agriculture are involved in an act of faith, an act of faith which calls for perseverance, tenacity, endurance and above all faith. When I think of agriculture, the problems and the challenges involved, I feel compelled to quote from Ecclesiastes 11, verse 4, which states—

And in verse 6 of the same chapter it is stated—

Frequently agriculture is referred to in negative terms. Frequently agriculture is spoken of as though it is responsible for the rising cost of living, for the rising food prices; as if it relies on subsidies and is an industry in which success and prosperity only exist for those directly involved in it. The question can be asked whether we acknowledge the important contribution of agriculture to our national prosperity and to our ability to survive in this country and whether we acknowledge the contribution of agriculture to employment, to the strategic entrenchment of our country, and even to our national security. If one looks at agriculture in the wider sense and wishes to emphasize and illustrate the relative importance of agriculture, one cannot but refer to the famous words uttered by the American philosopher William Bryant in 1896. I have already quoted them on a previous occasion, and I consider it apt to quote them again here—

This is true. Agriculture is the foundation, the substructure of economic growth and development. Without agriculture we cannot enjoy the level of prosperity in South Africa which we do in fact enjoy and we cannot maintain the growth and development we do in fact maintain.

Moreover, agriculture is important to the daily life and necessities of life of each and every one of us. The fact remains that agriculture satisfies the daily basic needs of almost 28 million people in this country, viz. the need for food and clothing.

In this entire set-up there are of course two important factors, two important components. On the one hand there is the producer of those products and on the other, the consumer of those products. Because this is so, and because the general public is concerned with food prices every day, and is confronted with them every day, and because food constitutes a part of the household budget on which it is difficult to economize—because the entire family must be fed, and must be fed properly—it is a fact that every increase in food prices comes under the spotlight, and arouses a great deal of criticism, and there is frequently little understanding for increases in food prices.

The point of departure of agriculture in South Africa is, first and foremost, to feed our total population adequately and well. This is a duty, a responsibility and the basic function of agriculture. Together with this, as a result of inflation—public enemy number one—and as a result of rises in input costs, increases in food prices must needs occur, irrespective of the wishes of the farmer. However, we must be grateful that we live in a country where agriculture is able to feed the entire population. We must be grateful that we do not live in a South Africa where food shortages are experienced, where people have to queue to buy food, where black market prices are paid for food and where people who have money are turned away because there is no food left to buy. We must be grateful for this. We live in a country which not only supplies sufficient food for its own people, but is in fact a net exporter of food to the rest of the world.

In the past, agriculture has fulfilled its responsibility to the population of the country. If for example we look at the past 10 years, we find that the volume of our agricultural production has increased by 40%. This means an annual growth rate in the physical volume of agricultural production of 3,42%. In contrast, the population increased at a rate of 2,37% per annum. This means that the farmer in South Africa has not only succeeded in feeding the rapidly growing population and meeting all its requirements; in addition he has produced an ever-increasing surplus of food which has to be traded on the export markets. By the year 2000 the farmers in this country will have to feed 50 million people, and this is a very formidable challenge, especially if we bear in mind that agricultural land does not increase, but in fact dwindles every year because agricultural ground is being used to build dams, roads and cities on. For this reason the farmers of South Africa will have to produce more food on less land in the years ahead.

Agriculture is also of strategic importance to South Africa. As I have already said, agriculture not only makes South Africa self-sufficient, but we are also a net exporter of food, which gives us a certain bargaining power in many respects. This exporting of food is frequently not appreciated fully and not sufficient value is attached to it. What is its significance? The significance is that South Africa cannot be threatened by food sanctions. We are sanction-free in respect of our food, which is obviously our most elementary and basic need. Here at the southernmost tip of Africa, where to the north of us there are at least 80 million starving people, where serious food shortages occur, where there is a negative growth in food production per capita of the African population, the Republic of South Africa stands out as a tower of light, a tower of hope, because of its ability to produce food. For this I wish to pay tribute to our farmers, our researchers, our extension officers and that part of the private sector involved in agriculture. I think it is a tremendous achievement that South Africa is one of the seven net exporters of food in the world. It is an unparalleled achievement bearing in mind our agricultural conditions here in South Africa. Something that is frequently not fully appreciated is the foreign exchange earned by agriculture for South Africa. In 1980 we imported food valued at R200 million but we exported food valued at R1 787 million. This means a net earning in foreign exchange by agriculture of R1 587 million. These are the earnings from food alone. For interest’s sake I took the figures for the years 1975 to 1980. In that period of six years we imported food valued at R917 million into this country. During the same six year period, however, we exported food valued at R8 769 million; in other words, there was a net earning in foreign exchange of R7 852 million by agriculture for South Africa.

Now the question is: Could South Africa have grown and developed to this extent if during this period of six years it had not received almost R8 000 million in foreign exchange from agriculture? Whereas we had a deficit on our balance of payments, and particularly the current account, throughout this period agriculture made a tremendous contribution in this connection and enabled us to pay for our imports. For this reason I really take off my hat to agriculture, the farmer and the secondary agricultural industries. To tell the truth, in 1980, with the exception of gold, exports of agricultural products constituted 18,4% of our total exports.

What is also important if one considers the role and the place and the importance of agriculture in our national economy, is the supply of raw materials by agriculture to much of our secondary and tertiary sectors. We need only consider the milling industry, the canning industry, the baking industry and the distribution industry to realize that agriculture plays an extremely important role. In addition, agriculture is one of the largest providers of employment in South Africa. This is also a point which is frequently overlooked. According to the census figures for 1970, 28% of the economically active population is employed in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. More than a quarter of the economically active people in this country earn a living in agriculture. What is also interesting is the fact that agriculture is the biggest user of the surface area of the Republic of South Africa.

Our country comprises 122,1 million ha. Our cities cover 1,7% of the surface area of South Africa, but agriculture occupies 105,9 million ha of land; in other words, 86% of the total surface area of the Republic of South Africa is occupied by agriculture. Therefore, what happens in agriculture is important and affects at least 86% of the Republic of South Africa. That, too, is why agriculture is so important for the rural areas. It is of the utmost importance for the rural areas because generally speaking, agriculture is the backbone of the economic activities and the economic viability of all the rural areas in South Africa. The depopulation of our rural areas, especially if it takes place on a large scale, is dangerous for South Africa. Looking at the far North and North-Western Transvaal we note how that area has become depopulated for economic reasons. What is the result of this? Due to that depopulation, a security situation has arisen in that area which must be rectified. The White occupation of that area must be restored. That is why I say that it is of such vital importance that all goes well with agriculture, because as long as all goes well with agriculture, all will go well with South Africa and the rural areas in particular.

In monetary terms, too, agriculture is very important. The gross value of our agricultural production was as high as R5 712 million in the 1979-’80 season. The capital asset in agriculture is a very large asset. At present the capital asset in agriculture totals R27 000 million, and over the past ten years it has increased by over R10 000 million. This is therefore an extremely large asset.

Agriculture as such, and the agricultural industry as such, is one of the largest consumers in the country. It is one of the largest consumers of manufactured products and the like. It is a stimulant for our entire economy, because the buying power of agriculture determines to a large extent the weal and woe of our secondary industries and also of the tertiary sector. I shall only point out a few examples. Farming expenditure has increased over the past five years from R1 340 million to R2 300 million. Expenditure on stock feed has increased by R346 million over the past five years and on fuel, by R249 million—an increase of 162% and 188% respectively. Expenditure on fertilizers has increased over the past five years by R300 million—an increase of 140%. Expenditure on dips and sprays has increased by 198%. This shows very clearly that agriculture is an extremely important purchaser of manufactured goods and is therefore very important to our secondary industries.

I referred to the rural areas. I believe that the rural areas are of the utmost importance to our country and our future. It is important that the rural areas should be socioeconomically sound. It is also essential that the rural areas have the greatest possible number of White farmers capable of making a decent living there. The rural areas also have some of our best human material, and that human material, together with the natural and renewable resources such as our land, our veld and our water, must be used optimally.

In the future we shall have to give very careful and sympathetic attention to the position of the smaller farmers in our country. It is absolutely essential for South Africa that we retain in agriculture the maximum number of people capable of making a decent living.

This also applies to another division of our national economy, which has now been added to the department. I refer to sea fisheries. Amongst our fishing communities along our extensive coastline, too, we find some of the best human material we have in the country. As regards the marine resources of our country, we shall have to ensure in future that we utilize them optimally. We shall have to utilize them in such a way as to enable us to retain the maximum number of individuals and entrepreneurs in that industry. Today I therefore wish to emphasize the idea of an economic unit as regards the fishing industry when it comes to the allocation of quotas to the fishing industry.

To be able to achieve this, to stabilize agriculture, to ensure a decent living for the maximum number of people in agriculture, to overcome the challenges of the future in respect of the growing demand and at the same time to survive the challenges of an accelerating increase in production inputs and the cost they involve together with ever decreasing world market prices for the farmer, it will be necessary for us to make a maximum input in respect of research and extension to enable our agriculturalists to survive the difficult times ahead—we are already experiencing them to a great extent.

Sir, allow me to mention a few highlights achieved in the course of the past year by the department.

In the first place there was a tremendous breakthrough in the combating of apple scab. There is worldwide research on this pest, and only recently a researcher in our department in South Africa made exceptional progress in connection with the control of apple scab, and this discovery is already enjoying worldwide recognition. The basis of the success achieved by this researcher was an in-depth study of the causative fungus and its epidemiology. He succeeded in designing a warning system which enables the farmer to begin a spraying programme in time to control the disease in apples completely.

Another highlight is that South Africa is now totally independent of imports from abroad in respect of seed potatoes and the breeding of potato cultivars. We imported R20 million of seed potatoes from Scotland and other countries annually, but thanks to the purposeful and hard work of the South African researchers, all the disease-free seed potatoes of high quality can at present be cultivated in the Republic and the Republic of South Africa is no longer dependent on overseas countries as far as seed potatoes are concerned. I am rather proud to tell you that this foundation seed potato unit is situated near Lydenburg. To illustrate the value of this I wish to point out that the gross value of our potato production already exceeds R115 million per annum. I also wish to congratulate the researchers on the fine work they have done. We have particularly good clients for those seed potatoes that we breed at Lydenburg.

A tremendous breakthrough has also been made in respect of jointed cactus. For many years jointed cactus has been controlled by an herbicide which has to be dissolved in paraffin before the plants can be sprayed. In view of the increase in the price of paraffin, this product gradually became so expensive that it cost twice as much as the herbicide. Research undertaken by the department resulted in the paraffin-soluble insecticide being replaced by a water-soluble product. This will entail a cost saving in excess of R500 000 per annum for the Government in this programme. I heartily congratulate these researchers too.

A tremendous break-through has also been made in respect of droning sickness. Until recently the cause of this disease among sheep—it is a contagious type of lung cancer and is not only found in South Africa—was completely unknown. Although it was suspected that the disease was caused by a virus, all efforts to prove this were unsuccessful. Recently with the aid of highly sophisticated bio-chemical techniques, researchers at Onderstepoort succeeded in demonstrating the presence of a specific type of virus. The electro microscope was utilized to spot the virus. It belongs to a group of cancer viruses known as retroviruses, for which it has thus far not been possible to find a vaccine. However, now that the cause is known, it should be possible to develop a technique to diagnose the disease in live sheep at an early stage, so that infected animals can be eliminated. In this way droning sickness may eventually be completely eradicated.

A tremendous breakthrough has also been made in respect of heartwater, in that a serological technique has now been developed by means of which it can be ascertained whether a head of cattle, a sheep or a goat is immune to heartwater. For many years efforts have been made to develop such a test because of its practical value for research into heartwater, and the control of the disease in the veld. This test will enable us to ascertain whether a specific animal is immune to heartwater, whether by natural infection in the veld, or by inoculation with heartwater substances. For the first time it will now be possible to ascertain to what extent heartwater occurs on farms in the endemic area and what the effect of tick control and immunization is on the immune state of the animal concerned.

Research on the use of sunflower oil as a tractor fuel is a major achievement because this is the first time in the world that a tractor has run for 2 300 hours on pure sunflower oil. There are problems with the injection system, but they too are being overcome. The indirect injection system is giving little trouble, and the esterification of the sunflower oil has great possibilities. We consider the research being carried out in this respect as research of the highest priority in case we are faced with oil sanctions.

Various emergency conditions were also overcome, in spite of the limited manpower and funds of our department. The Russian wheat aphid problem, which posed a threat to the wheat industry, was successfully averted. The necessary steps were also taken against rye-grass poisoning. Groundnut pod rot was also given intensive attention, and the necessary measures have been taken against the destructive blue-green aphid in lucerne and other Medicagos.

In the field of energy conservation the Department is not only involved in research in connection with sunflower oil. There is also research aimed at ascertaining how much energy can be saved in tilling the soil while still obtaining the same results. In this connection, too, good progress has been made with minimum tillage and the neutralizing of soil compaction. This in turn has led to a considerable saving in fuel, while—and this is the most interesting aspect—with minimum tillage there has apparently been less fluctuation in yields. In addition, interesting results were also obtained in respect of the placing of fertilizer and the resistance to drought subsequently shown by the plant.

Great progress has also been made in the breeding of adapted agricultural crops. Large quantities of germ plasm and breeding material were imported from overseas, adapted to local conditions and made available to the private sector for the breeding of adapted cultivars. Aspects which received special attention were greater drought resistance and resistance to diseases and pests such as streak disease and the maize stalk borer. This research has led to the farmer now having cultivars for most field crops which compare favourably with the best available elsewhere in the world as regards yields, diseases and resistance to insects. In the field of high lysine maize hybrids the RSA at present has cultivars which compare with the best in the world. Our disease-free dried bean seed scheme was also put into effect during the past year, and the Dried Bean Board, the Government and the private sector are jointly involved in this. This system is not only the only one of its kind in the world, but also has great possibilities for more effective dried bean production.

I should like to pay tribute to these researchers who have given us these wonderful results. They are people who sometimes work in isolation and under difficult conditions, but they are people who do not work for a salary as such. They work for an ideal. This is the reason for their great successes and the good results they achieve.

I have already pointed out that agriculture faces great and serious challenges in the future. If, therefore, we want to fight the war against hunger, we must have the necessary soldiers, officers and expertise to be able to win the war. We cannot win that war if we lack the machinery and men. Over the years, the various components of the Department of Agriculture have been solely responsible for the supply of agricultural services such as research, extension, economic and also regulatory services. This department does not only provide research services and extension services. There are also important regulatory services to be provided.

There are for example our inspection services, on which our imports and exports depend. There are also services in connection with hygiene, and the like, which are important regulatory functions which cannot be dealt with by the private sector, cooperatives or other bodies, but only by the State. The agricultural industry has progressed by leaps and bounds during the past few decades, and an increasing demand has arisen for research, extension, regulatory and other services. The demand for these services has increased to such an extent that the department is unable to meet it. Other bodies have accordingly begun to offer these services, for example the agricultural cooperatives, private companies, control boards, etc. This has meant that the limited agricultural manpower had of necessity to be divided amongst the various claimants. The former Department of Agriculture, at present the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, has in the past lost many workers to other bodies, and could also appoint fewer of the available workers. The scarce agricultural manpower is at present totally dispersed, to such an extent that no one can really claim that agriculture as a whole is being served properly and countrywide. The dispersion of the scarce agricultural manpower means that multi-disciplinary action, which modern times demand, is out of the question. Largescale superficialization has occurred in the utilization of highly qualified agriculturalists. One gets the situation where a highly productive researcher who is on the verge of producing results, someone who has studied a certain field in depth, is lured away by the private sector to sell fertilizer or to be a property consultant, which is nothing but a glorified estate agent. It is not that I wish to be derogatory about this profession. But it costs thousands of rand to train these agriculturalists at the universities. The results of their research are necessary if we are to face the challenges of the future. But now some of these highly trained people are being used in fields where they frequently lack the necessary apparatus and the necessary funds to be able to do their work properly. Surely South Africa cannot afford this. We cannot train pilots and then have them drive taxis. We cannot train agricultural scientists who then do completely different work. South Africa will have to pay a high price for this.

The only solution to this state of affairs would seem to be the co-ordination of the dispersed agricultural functions. My department has already spent a great deal of time and energy on this co-ordination action, but unfortunately with little success, owing to the divergent aims of the bodies involved in some actions. I want to state unequivocally that many bodies in the private sector employ those people because of the good name and status they have achieved as scientists. They want to use that name and status for their own commercial purposes. This is a real tragedy for agriculture. I appointed the Krone Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Frances Krone, a member of the Marketing Council, to co-ordinate the control boards. We also appointed a committee to liaise between the S.A. Agricultural Union and the department. After all the discussions and think tanks, those people came to me as a body and told me they could not make progress because they cannot cover the total field of the supply of agricultural services.

Because progress could not be made by means of the normal channels of discussion, the South African Agricultural Union, which is extremely concerned on behalf of the farming community, proposed to me that the entire matter be investigated in depth. After consultations and with the full support of the hon. the Prime Minister, I decided to appoint a committee to investigate the supply of agricultural services in the broader sense in South Africa. It is foreseen that this investigation will be widespread and extremely complex, and for this reason a great deal of thought will have to go into the terms of reference of the committee. I shall hold discussions in this connection with other bodies, especially the S.A. Agricultural Union, and the private sector, the control boards, etc., before the composition of the committee is finalized.

As regards the composition of the committee, I shall have to include, inter alia, the following: the S.A. Agricultural Union; the agricultural control boards; statutory bodies involved in agricultural services; semi-State institutions involved in research functions; the private sector, for example the seed industry, the fertilizer industry and the chemical industry; the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries; other Government departments also supplying agricultural services; and the Commission for Administration. The lastmentioned must make a contribution from the viewpoint of organizational expertise. It will be necessary to take a very serious look at the delimitation of the functional field of everyone involved in agriculture.

The agricultural industry is of such a nature that the results of what one does today, will remain valid and determine the position of agriculture for 20 to 25 years. If one lags behind now, one may only realize in five to 10 years’ time what a difficult situation one is in. For this reason I believe it is in the national interest that we carry out an intensive investigation of agriculture to ascertain how we can utilize the limited manpower at our disposal to the maximum advantage of agriculture in South Africa in the long term.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half hour.

Let me say at once that we on this side of the House welcome the investigation to which the hon. the Minister referred. It is also very clear to us that agricultural extension, services and the scientific development of new approaches and techniques in agriculture have become absolutely essential. We therefore support that suggestion of the hon. the Minister.

The hon. the Minister also referred to other problem areas in the industry, to which I shall also refer. Firstly, he said that the agricultural industry was a very complex industry. Then he also referred to the negative way in which the image of the agriculturalist is often conveyed in the country. The third point he made, on which one could perhaps embroider, was that the relationship that has arisen in South Africa between the producer and the consumer is very often not what it ought to be. The hon. the Minister also referred to the rapid increase in the prices of inputs in the industry and said that attempts would be made to counteract the rate at which the price of inputs was increasing. It is especially with regard to those aspects that I wish to make a contribution today.

Since we discussed this Vote last year a new Minister has taken over responsibility for it. I want to wish him everything of the best and just at the same time also say that we will support him wherever possible when he is acting in the interests of the agricultural industry. I think this is the role we have to play here.

In the past I have often tried to discover what the Government’s agricultural policy was, but up to now I have asked that question without much success. Now the hon. the Minister has referred to it himself today. He pointed out the complexity of the industry. Therefore I would expect hon. members opposite—if the hon. the Minister does not do so himself—to spell out more clearly to us how agriculture will develop in future and what the approach of the Government will be in this respect. Last year an hon. member opposite did try to enunciate an agricultural policy for the Government. It was the hon. member for Malmesbury. He said that the agricultural industry should be developed in such a way that it was able to meet the need for food in South Africa and in its neighbouring countries. He also said that in order to implement this policy, it would be necessary for the agricultural industry to be kept in the hands of the optimum number of independent farmers. Today the hon. the Minister repeated that aim almost word for word as it was expressed last year by the hon. member for Malmesbury. I must accept, therefore, that the hon. the Minister also sees this to a certain extent—perhaps not entirely—as the approach which is necessary on the part of the Government. Consequently I wish to measure the realities of the agricultural industry against that policy today.

In the first place I have to put it to hon. members opposite that the number of farmers has dwindled very rapidly over the past few years and that it is virtually impossible for a young man to enter the agricultural industry today. Consequently I am compelled to say that as far as the first objective is concerned, the Government and the department of the hon. the Minister have already failed. Secondly, the Government has not succeeded to an adequate extent in meeting the South African community’s need for food, to say nothing of completely satisfying that community’s need for food.

Now I must concede at once that it is true that as far as the quantity of food is concerned, there is no shortage. However, for a very large sector of our population which cannot afford the food, the surplus in the industry is no consolation. The hon. the Minister will simply have to give attention to the soaring food prices. We just cannot get away from that. At this stage I do not want to refer to all the price increases of the past few years in the food industry. I do not want to repeat everything that has already been said before. In fact, it has already been done repeatedly. Yet I should point out that while the consumer price index rose last year by approximately 15%, food prices rose by more than 30%. It is nothing new. The hon. the Minister is aware of that. During the same year, however, producer prices rose by far less than 30%. Consequently the gap between the producer and the consumer prices became even larger, as was the case in the past. This gap should receive the attention of the hon. the Minister because 85% of all agricultural production is controlled and administered by way of legislation. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the hon. the Minister to look at these things. He cannot try to evade it.

The control boards, in terms of the Marketing Act, already control and administer 75% of all agricultural produce, while a further 10% is controlled in terms of other legislation. As I said, it is therefore clear that that hon. Minister and his agents should to a very large extent be held responsible for the rampant price increases over the past few years, especially last year. The role played by control boards and the manner in which they carry out their marketing functions should be investigated in depth. In South Africa there is almost no leading businessman or academic in the commercial field who has not expressed himself very strongly opposed to the marketing board system. Where they have not condemned it out of hand, some of them have strongly recommended that in future control boards should control to a far lesser extent and should be far more market-orientated. The control boards create the impression that they represent the interests of farmers, but over the long term most of them acquired an image of incompetence and also fostered mistrust between the consumer and the agriculturalist, something which in the long term cannot be to anybody’s advantage.

Do you agree with them on that score?

I am in absolute agreement with the view that the image these control boards have created has caused a lack of confidence in agriculture on the part of the consumer. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister agrees with me on that.

Do you agree with the other people’s view?

I am coming to that. I am dealing with it. I am talking about the image now. I think hon. members opposite and even the hon. the Minister, agree with me about the image of these boards and that we will have to do something to see whether this is really the case or not.

But is it not a misapprehension?

Hon. members will all take part in the debate later. The time has now come for the whole framework of the marketing and distribution of agricultural products to be investigated by independent experts, for example as was done with regard to the utilization of manpower. Only then, after independent experts have carried out an investigation, will we in this House be able to ponder and to debate this matter objectively.

The hon. the Minister announced this afternoon that he was going to appoint a commission to advise the department in respect of another field. I should very much like the hon. the Minister, in this case, as well to investigate this aspect on that level.

†There is another field in which this department has failed in its duty. There is an inability or an unwillingness on the part of the department to cope with the emergence of highly sophisticated organizations which are slowly but surely getting a stranglehold over both the consumer and the producer, and the hon. the Minister knows to what specific organizations I am referring now. We have often debated the emergence of monopolies in the industry, and I know that hon. members on that side of the House are as concerned about this as I am.

Last year I asked the hon. the Minister whether steps had been taken to ensure that the retail price of maize and maize products had not been increased beyond the amount justified by the then announced price increases of maize. The hon. the Minister replied that no steps had been taken as there was no price control over maize products. He went on to say that the Maize Board did regular price surveys to ascertain whether there was any justification for the introduction of price control. The hon. the Minister also said that competition in the trade was sufficient to enable prices to be kept within reasonable limits. That was his approach and at that stage I accepted what the hon. the Minister had said as being the true picture of the situation. However, when one looks at the developments in the market-place today, one can only say: How wrong can a person be? How incompetent can the Maize Board have been in its regular surveys to have allowed what has developed over the past few months or so? Only last week I again put a question to the hon. the Minister asking him whether his attention had been drawn to the formation of a maize millers’ cartel. The hon. the Minister replied in the affirmative. He said that he knew about it but that he had no confirmation of the fact that such a cartel had actually been formed. I want to ask, Sir, whether the hon. the Minister is living in an ivory tower here in Parliament and whether he really has no contact with what is happening in the outside world. I heard of the formation of this cartel in of all places Transkei when I was on holiday there during June of this year. Over the past two to three weeks newspapers all over the country have carried articles and reports on the alleged formation of such a cartel. They even approached the hon. the Minister for comment. I want to ask the hon. the Minister now whether he or his department ever tried to obtain confirmation of this monopoly.

Yes.

Can the hon. the Minister please tell me from whom he tried to obtain this information?

From the people who made the announcement.

So the hon. the Minister tried to obtain the information but he did not succeed. I find that absolutely amazing and I shall tell you why. The reason why I asked the hon. the Minister whether or not he knew about the formation of this cartel and to which he replied in the affirmative on Thursday or Friday of last week—I think it was the 9th—was that already on 3 September an article had appeared in the Rand Daily Mail in which the existence of this cartel was announced and in which there was comment by the Consumer Council and the Deputy Director of the National Maize Producers’ Organization as well as comment by somebody else. In fact, they said that they were studying the documents. This report appeared a week before I asked the hon. the Minister that question. Surely, Sir, if the hon. the Minister had been really serious about finding out about the existence of this cartel he could have spoken to Nampo. They had the document there and they would have shared it with him. They would probably have sent him a copy of the document so that his department could have studied it. In all sincerity, therefore, it would appear to me that the hon. the Minister and his department were insufficiently concerned about the threat of this monopoly to take any serious action in this regard and to try to find out what was going on in agriculture and what was happening to agricultural products. I can tell the hon. the Minister, however, Sir, that there are other people who care about this very much indeed. The farmers care because last year there was a drop in the consumption of maize products of something like 6% and they realized that any price rise would depress domestic consumption even further, thus increasing the export surplus as well as the export loss. Therefore, if the hon. the Minister was not concerned I can assure him that the farmers were very much concerned. The Consumer Council were also very much concerned.

You know that what you are saying now is not the truth.

How can the hon. the Minister say that? I deny his allegation with the strongest possible words. How can he tell me that it is not true? I am telling him about the article in the newspaper. I have quoted the date on which this was said, but a week later, in answer to my question, the hon. the Minister said that he did not know whether such a cartel was in existence.

The Consumer Council, more than a week ago, threatened to take the matter to the Competitions Board should it become clear to them that the millers were restricting competition amongst themselves. As I already pointed out, the farmers themselves were concerned and while they were aware of the cartel, they in fact said that they did not have sufficient confidence in the Competitions Board to take the matter to them. The deputy director of the National Maize Producers’ Organization, however, said that any millers’ cartel would be fought tooth and nail. He said that he would urgently study a copy of the agreement—on 3 September he already had a copy of the agreement—and if necessary, they would apply to the Maize Board to reintroduce price control of maize products.

As I have asked earlier, does the hon. the Minister no longer speak to Nampo? Did he not ask for a copy of this agreement against which everybody else was up in arms? If one looks at the agreement, one finds it quite astounding to see what it includes. I shall refer to only one or two of the clauses which form part of the agreement. In clause 3(1) we find that the agreement—the agreement as drafted by the leading millers of this country—was aimed at the control of the price and the distribution of samp, maize, maize grit, super maize, etc. In fact, they have the entire list in this document. They endeavoured to control the price of every single maize product consumed by people.

In clause 5(1) they spoke about the quotas that would be applied. I do wish that the hon. the Minister, who knows so little about this agreement, would listen to me. They say that every party to the agreement shall have the initial quota set out against its name and such a quota shall be its percentage share of the aggregate of all the parties’ sales of the products. They also say that such quotas shall be subject to adjustment from time to time in terms of the provisions of the agreement.

We know what products they plan to control and we know that they have agreed amongst themselves on certain quotas for those who are prepared to sign such a document.

They go further and they say that they will insure that those who sign the document and who participate in this monopoly will be penalized if they over-sell and will be credited if they under-sell. That is an absolutely pure monopoly as I understand the position. Those who dare to over-sell will be fined and they will have to pay into a pool a sum of money while those who under-sell will be compensated by their colleagues in the pool because they have done so.

That should be illegal.

Precisely. It should be absolutely illegal, and yet the hon. the Minister and his department did not even get so far as calling for that document from Nampo when it was already available. They then go further, and in this document there are the names of all those companies that are involved. Very often when one talks in this House about exploitation of the consumer and of price increases, hon. members on that side of the House say: “Well, what do you expect from organized industry? What do you expect from the private sector? What do you expect from the non-farming sector?” But do hon. members know that members or prospective members of this monopoly, of this cartel, which absolutely exploits and which should be illegal, also include a number of our major co-operatives in South Africa, co-operatives which should be assisting the fanner and which should understand the need of the consumer?

*They did not remain outside this cartel; no, they are involved boots and all.

†Once this hon. Minister allows the formation of a monopoly such as this …

Where did I allow it?

I say that if it is allowed, then it is only a question of time before this monopoly is also extended to include animal feeds. What is then going to happen to other farmers who are dependent on these products? I should like the hon. the Minister, if he can, to deal with this subject today and to reassure this side of the House and all the consumers of this country that this Parliament will not allow the creation of a monopoly such as this, a monopoly which is ultimately going to cost us very, very dearly.

Mr. Chairman, allow me at the very outset, on behalf of the agricultural group in our party, to express our gratitude towards the former Minister of Agriculture, presently the Minister of Transport Affairs for the excellent service that he has rendered to the agricultural sector of South Africa for many years. The farmers of South Africa have become so accustomed to Hendrik Schoeman that many of them still cannot imagine that he is no longer their Minister of Agriculture. The farmers of South Africa are very much indebted to him. Allow me also, Sir, to say in the same breath that since he is going to submit the Railways budget as Minister of Transport Affairs on Wednesday, we remind him that the farmers of South Africa are waiting with great expectations for all the concessions that he is going to announce for the agricultural industry in that budget. We shall be sincerely grateful for them.

Allow me also, Sir, to wish our young, energetic new Minister of Agriculture everything of the best for the future. The farmers are good people, but they sometimes expect superhuman powers from a Minister of Agriculture. However, we know that no one has those powers, and that is why we wish him everything of the best for the future.

To begin with I want to say that I am grateful for the announcement which the hon. the Minister made in regard to the proposed commission of inquiry into the provision of agricultural services. I think such a commission should have been announced some time ago already. If we look at the latest annual report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, we find the following in connection with the Transvaal region at the bottom of page 99, where reference is made to the problems in agricultural production—

And this is the important section—

I think that those words are putting the problem rather mildly. A serious problem has really arisen in South Africa in connection with the provision of extension services. In his introductory speech, the hon. the Minister has already referred more or less in full to the problem of fragmentation, etc. That is why it is absolutely essential and desirable for this investigation to be launched as soon as possible. However, I just want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will ensure that this investigation, which in my opinion should have taken place a long time ago already, will not be delayed, but that the work will be dealt with as soon as possible so that the matters that are out of line can be put right.

The hon. member for Wynberg is accusing the department in the first instance of being responsible for the fact that the food requirements of South Africa have not been met.

Not at a price that the people can afford.

However, he qualified this by saying that food prices in South Africa are such that a large section of our population cannot afford to pay them. One could surely debate that statement. However, the hon. member for Wynberg then used this year’s figures, a year in which food prices have in fact undergone a dramatic increase, in order to prove his statement. However, would it not have been more objective and realistic if he had compared the increase in food prices over the past decade with the increase in the cost of living index and then to have seen whether he came to the same conclusion? If one were to do this, one could not but come to the conclusion that food prices have in fact lagged behind in comparison to the increase in the general cost of living index.

But if you could not eat in 1980, it is no use saying that you could eat in 1970.

I am reminded in particular of the fact that the former hon. the Minister of Agriculture, the present Minister of Transport Affairs, addressed a warning to the consumers of South Africa in this House a year or so ago when he said that the days of cheap food in South Africa were something of the past. The hon. the Minister specifically pointed out that farmers have had to become accustomed to uneconomical agricultural prices for such a long time that the dam wall would burst shortly and that there would have to be a dramatic increase in food prices, otherwise South Africa would not have food.

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

No, I really do not have the time. That point has in fact been reached. After a considerable increase in food prices to begin with, as I indicated, the position has after all stabilized to a large extent.

However, this afternoon, echoing some newspapers, the hon. member for Wynberg also made vague allegations about our control board system. He did not have the courage, however, to accuse the control boards of inefficiency and incompetence. But he did not have the courage to say exactly which control boards were supposedly incompetent or inefficient. He is trying to circumvent this by saying, however, that the consumers have an incompetent image of the control boards. We know who is creating that image. It is not the friends of the farmers or of agriculture in South Africa who are doing so, and I think this is a pity. If the hon. member for Wynberg was really serious about the image which the consumer has of the control boards of South Africa and if agriculture was really important to him, I would have expected him to try to rectify the image which the consumer has of the control boards, on the basis of the factual information. However, he did not do this, and nor did he try to do so. He did more towards strengthening that so-called poor image that he mentioned. I cannot come to any other conclusion from the speech that he delivered this afternoon. If he really had a complaint, we, the control boards and organized agriculture in South Africa, should like to know from the official Opposition: Who are they actually complaining about? Are they complaining about the Maize Board, or is it perhaps the Wool Board that is inefficient? Tell us which control board it is, so that we can adopt a standpoint. To make a vague, general accusation against the majority of the control boards here in the highest House of the country, however, as he did, and in this way to place everyone in the dock, is, in my opinion, extremely unfair. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I should like to pay tribute to my hon. predecessor, Dr. Schalk van der Merwe. Hon. members are aware of his rapid advancement to the position of Deputy Minister, then Minister and now to that of chairman of an important committee of the President’s Council. He represented the Gordonia constituency with great distinction and I should like to pay tribute to him for this today.

When one has to deliver one’s first speech in the House, one does not know what one should say and what one is not allowed to say. Then one is in the same position as the man who was once elected as an elder of the Church. He too was unsure of what it entailed. One of his friends asked him: “What will your aims be on the church council?” He replied: “Man, the first thing to go, will be dog tax.” That man was specially interested in dog tax, and I am specially interested in agriculture, and therefore I should like to express a few ideas about agriculture, particularly with regard to irrigation development in South Africa. I want to confine myself chiefly to the Orange River area, specifically to that portion between the confluence and the sea.

The Orange River region is a region characterized by extremes. The region has a climate of extremes, with very hot summer days, as well as very cold nights during winter. It is a region where the most intensive irrigation farming in South Africa is practised, as well as the most extensive cattle farming in South Africa. It is also a region which has experienced the most serious droughts in our history, but which has also been struck by the worst floods in South Africa. Although this region has its own charm, it definitely does not have the most beautiful scenery in South Africa, which other members can say of their constituencies. However, I want to say with pride that it is one of the most productive regions in South Africa. I can illustrate this by saying that on the 22 000 ha of irrigated land from Boegoeberg to Augrabies, which comprises a mere 2,5% of the total land under irrigation in South Africa, an average of more than 50% of the country’s lucerne, marketed on a co-operative basis, is produced annually. More than 50% of our country’s dried peas are produced there, 70% of our country’s dried fruit is produced there, and today we have the largest wine co-operative in South Africa in that region. I just want to say that there is more of this land with a high agricultural potential available in this region, and I shall refer to it later on.

I want to refer to the Viljoen report on water affairs in South Africa. One of the most important recommendations of that body was that they did not see the need for tremendous irrigation extension in the immediate future in South Africa. We want to agree with them, but with the proviso that attention will be given to existing irrigation schemes in South Africa, in order to ensure that they will have the most efficient distribution and drainage systems possible.

There are also many good reasons why the extension of the new irrigation schemes in South Africa should not be delayed too long. In the first place—the hon. the Minister referred to this too—we are dealing with food production for the future. We cannot go ahead and increase production on the same land without restriction. The point is reached where even with increased inputs, the vertical production cannot be significantly increased. Therefore, the stage is reached where the law of diminishing returns begins to come into play. The alternative is merely to expand on the horizontal plane, that is, to enlarge the area under cultivation.

Furthermore, today we are faced with a surplus of water in the Orange River. It is necessary for agriculture to claim its rightful share in good time. The argument is being put forward that for a given quantity of water much more steel can be produced, in money terms, than agricultural products such as, for instance, wheat or maize. However, that argument cannot be used to curtail our agricultural production in the future.

There is another important reason why this development must be commenced timeously. If we develop new land, we can very effectively settle people who have lost their farms as a result of consolidation or enforced expropriation on this new land. Many of these farmers would like to remain in agriculture and we should also like to have them there, as the hon. the Minister said too. A farmer who is worth his salt, develops a love for his farm, and he attaches sentimental value to what he has built up there. Now surely we cannot take it amiss if a farmer revolts against having to leave his farm today. However, we can make him a proposition which will satisfy him, we can bring about much more goodwill amongst the farmers in the consolidation areas.

If we have this land available, it will also place less of a financial burden on the State because then one will practically be dealing with an exchange transaction and there will not be such a tremendous capital payment involved.

I should like to indicate briefly how much of this high potential land is available. Between the confluence and Prieska, 19 000 ha of such land is available, between Prieska and Boegoeberg 14 300 ha is available and between Boegoeberg and the sea, 11 200 ha. This gives a total of 44 500 ha on which one can establish farms of an average economic size and settle approximately 500 farmers there. That is not all, because irrigation farming is labour-intensive and a few thousand labourers and their families can also be settled on these properties.

The rivers of South Africa are arteries flowing through the country, our soil is our most valuable possession, and it will simply be necessary to utilize these agricultural resources to the maximum in the future in order to provide for our food requirements in the future.

I want to say thank you very much today to the authorities that are to bring about these tremendous developments in our country, for the fact that they have so often reached out their hand to us farmers in the past, when we have been forced to our knees as a result of drought or some disaster or other. To those bodies who uplift our people once again so that they can continue to produce for the agriculture in South Africa, I express my thanks and appreciation.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to compliment the hon. member for Gordonia on his maiden speech. He has given a very good appreciation of conditions in his constituency, and I am sure that his future contributions in this House will be of great value.

I also wish to express the very good wishes of us in the NRP to the hon. the Minister, who is in his first year in this portfolio. He has given an indication of a positive approach to the problems with which he is confronted as Minister of what he called a very complex department. I also wish to pay tribute to his predecessor, who is now the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. Many of us are fully aware of the onerous burden that he carried on his shoulders and we wonder if it is not for that reason that he was transported, as it were, into a different portfolio.

We in the NRP feel that the agricultural scene in this country cannot really be judged by the present free availability of agricultural products. The fact that we in South Africa, generally speaking, have a wide variety of foodstuffs from which we can select, I believe tends to lead to the public adopting a false sense of security regarding the future availability of agricultural products. This in turn does not provide a true assessment of the many problems that exist at the level of production. Before dealing with this in detail I wish to make it quite clear that we in the NRP stand one hundred per cent behind the Marketing Act, though there are certain aspects of its application that need to be reviewed. We see the Marketing Act as a measure aimed at bringing stability and regularity into the agricultural industry. We see it as a means of minimizing the gap between the price paid by the consumer and the price the producer receives.

Finally, we see the Marketing Act, if applied correctly, as a means of ensuring that there is a place on the land for the small farmer. This is something to which the hon. the Minister has already made some reference. The presence of the small farmer on the land is of such vital importance. I am concerned at the manner in which certain aspects of the Marketing Act are being applied, and I would like to make it clear that it is our opinion that control boards should be allowed greater flexibility, and that their functions should be directed more towards marketing than to the actual control of the product.

We in the NRP are also concerned about the fact that the Government is not paying sufficient attention to long-term planning in the agricultural industry. I must warn the hon. the Minister that ad hoc decisions have been taken to solve problems which could be obviated by an efficient system of long-term planning.

As an example I want to quote the meat industry. We are all aware of the problems that have arisen in the meat industry and the outcry that has followed the escalation in meat prices. I make bold to say that this reaction need not have arisen had the Government heeded the warnings of organized agriculture and had taken cognizance of the plight of the beef farmer between the years 1974 and 1979. What happened to the meat farmer? His position became completely untenable. He was forced to sell livestock capital to meet running expenses, and it was logical that this state of affairs could not continue.

The results are all too obvious to us all at the present time. The results of this have had far-reaching effects. We are now facing a position where our cattle population has dropped by 50% to a mere 8 million. Who would understand and who would comprehend that it was necessary for a country like ours to import meat to meet the requirements of the day? I ask: What planning is this? One must also ask oneself whether the problems in the meat industry are likely to have a rub-off effect on any other sectors of agriculture. I would draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the possibility that the wool industry itself may be suffering a severe setback because there is already a tendency for sheep-farmers to concentrate more on mutton production as opposed to wool. I may point out, although I hardly need to, that the quality of the wool that we produce in this country is something for which we have a historical reputation. I repeat that the long-term planning of the agricultural industry is a matter that must receive the urgent attention of the hon. the Minister. It is for this reason that I was glad to hear of his announcement to appoint such a broad-based investigation. When he comes to the terms of reference of that inquiry, I would ask him to indicate whether he is satisfied that the trend towards cash cropping, at the expense of the livestock factor, is in the long-term interest of the country.

No section of any industry has suffered inflation more than that of agriculture. Agriculture is in the unique position where production requisites are purchased at retail, yet agricultural products are sold at wholesale prices. This is borne out by the fact that for the period ending June 1981 agricultural income increased by 6%, to R2 219,6 million. Included in this is the considerable increase in the price of meat. Yet the agricultural debt increased by 20%, to R3 838,5 million for the year ended December 1980. If one is to study the increase in production costs for the period 1975 to the end of June 1981, one finds that costs have increased by 118,3%; yet combined producer prices received for products over the same period increased by only 87,5%. The indications of this are ominous. They indicate an undesirable direction in which the whole agricultural industry is tending to move.

We in these benches also feel that the solution of high food prices does not fie in unlimited food subsidies. We accept that under the present circumstances there is a need to subsidize essential foodstuffs, and we shall support this concept, but I must point out that we feel that the problems relating to cost of production should be dealt with at grass-roots level. In other words, the Government must ensure that as far as possible input costs must be kept to an absolute minimum. In this regard I refer to two particular facets, viz. fuel, which has increased by some 257% since 1975, thus contributing 15% of the total agricultural cost of production, and the removal of duties on imported agricultural machinery. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Mooi River on his speech. I have very little fault to find with his approach. I think there is one important principle which should apply in agricultural debates and this is that we should strive to promote agriculture as a whole, i.e. taking into account all the problems involved. The impression that I have of the hon. member, is that although he pointed out faults, he took the realities into account. I should like to congratulate him on that.

There is another aspect that I should also like to emphasize somewhat here. This afternoon the hon. member for Wynberg made quite a fuss about control boards and actually questioned the efficiency of control boards. The PFP is always obsessed by private initiative in the private sector but today the hon. member was in fact attacking the private sector which is now involved in forming consortiums as a result of which problems may arise. It is a fact that the Maize Control Board, which he mentioned in particular, exercized control over the price of the end-product at a certain stage and then as a result of pressure that was exerted, and the question of control for the sake of control, the control board removed that price control on the end product in order to give private initiative the opportunity of establishing a price level for that product. Cost was also a factor that had to be taken into account. The control board did this. After the board has done this, the Government is now being accused because they are now allowing this so-called formation of consortiums. The hon. the Minister as well as the previous Minister have said on occasion that if there is an exploitation of the prices of products by whoever it may be, they would not hesitate to institute price control, taking into account all the factors such as the consequences involved, the cost involved and control for the sake of control. Therefore, the mechanism is still there.

The second point in this regard is also true. The hon. member mentioned the producers but the producers control the control board. The producers are represented on the control board and they control that control board. It is therefore in their power to advise the Minister and to tell him that they want price control. Then, depending on certain circumstances such as the facts that I have just mentioned, it is within the Minister’s power to decide whether it is justified or not. This is the way it functions in practice. If the hon. member therefore criticizes this Government and the hon. the Minister without taking into account the true course of events and the structures that exist, I do not think that he is serving the country as a whole, nor agriculture. We cannot solve problems in that way. We must solve them in the way that the hon. member for Mooi River proposed. We must first identify the problems and then agriculture as a whole must try to solve those problems.

There is another aspect that I should like to discuss. I want to talk about agricultural research. I am grateful for the announcement that the hon. the Minister made here today. There is a trend within agriculture in South Africa whereby various sectors within agriculture determine the importance of certain research projects without taking into account the mutual interdependence of commodities or the introduction of object planning on the long term. Then research projects are carried out which cause certain problems. In the first place there is the question of funds, the availability of funds and secondly there is the question of the available staff who have been technically and professionally trained to carry out the work. I want to make a request in this House today. If we fragment our agriculture in an agricultural community to such an extent that we cannot achieve co-ordination and co-operation between the authorities and the private sector, that on the basis of that we cannot obtain co-operation for directing our objective planning in the right direction and evaluating projects in advance, we shall be wasting funds and then we are going to experience problems with regard to salary scales and structures for our technical staff.

I want to motivate this. If one looks at the annual report, one finds that it is stated there that on the technical level, 23,7% of the posts are vacant and on the professional level, 17,1%. It is interesting to note that despite these percentages, that indicate an increase on the vacancies in the previous year, there was a decrease in the number of approved posts in those specific directions. Therefore one finds that in 1979 there were 1 779 technical posts available as against 1 723 in the 1980 financial year. In the professional sphere, the position is more alarming, because there were 1 504 in 1979 as against a mere 1 446 posts available in 1980. As I have already pointed out, 17,1% of the posts in the professional direction are vacant.

I am pointing out these aspects because in the past one found that the co-operatives, which also planned certain research projects and deemed it necessary to do so, as well as other enterprises in the private sector—here I am thinking for instance of the fertiliser industry—were short of staff and this was to their disadvantage as far as the economic advantages as companies was concerned. I do not consider the fact that they then filled those posts is not of economic advantage for the country as a whole, because they had a task that they fulfilled. However, those people were obtained by offering them higher salaries and then luring away from the public sector, particularly the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Of course, this caused a shortage to arise in the department.

As a result of this, it may now happen that other bodies are going to exert pressure so that they too can launch research projects. In this way they are fragmenting the entire research unit which exists, and it will mean that we may not be able to achieve our goal. Since the hon. the Minister has now appointed this committee, I should like to make a serious request of him to go into the question of establishing an agricultural research council. It should function along the lines of a co-operative so that technical people can be accommodated and remunerated. Such a council must then also coordinate all research projects. Of course, there must also be inputs from all the relevant sectors so that the necessary research work can be carried out.

As regards the funds that will have to be obtained for this research council, it is the hon. the Minister who can provide these at this stage by means of a vote by Parliament. Of course, the funds can also be obtained by means of imposing levies on the products. If such levies are imposed on the products, they will of course be statutory levies, the responsibility for which rests with the hon. the Minister. Since it is the farmers’ money that is involved, the responsibility rests with the hon. the Minister to oblige the farmer to contribute that money which is not made available on a voluntary basis. The responsibility which rests with the hon. the Minister in this regard, also means of course that he has a responsibility with regard to the expenditure of the funds. The responsibility with regard to the expenditure, will therefore not rest with the farmers alone.

I feel that all those research funds should be accommodated by the research council so that one can draw up a purposeful research programme which could then deal with the organization for the planning and evaluation thereof. Furthermore, the research council should also carry out the necessary liaison required for such research projects. At this stage of the development of agriculture we must accept that we have to take a new direction. We must also bear in mind that even as far as the research that has been carried out thus far is concerned—we should erect monuments to this—we shall have to take a new direction in order to draw the maximum benefit from it. We must create new structures. The direction in which agricultural research is moving at the moment, indicates that there is a danger that it may take place on an individual basis.

I therefore request the hon. the Minister to give his serious attention to this matter. In the same way as we have a Scientific and Industrial Research Council, we should also have an agricultural research council in which the entire system can be accommodated and funds may be made available. Furthermore, that council must be in a position to obtain the required technical staff without mutual competition for such people.

Mr. Chairman, to deliver a maiden speech immediately after such an old hand as the hon. member for Ventersdorp, is not an easy task. However, it is a very great honour for me to be able to participate today in a discussion in this governing House of our dearest country, South Africa.

Queenstown holds the record for supplying this House with two Speakers and I should like to pay tribute to my predecessors for the great service that they have rendered to this House and to South Africa too.

I should also like to express my greatest appreciation towards the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, his Deputy Minister, the Director-General and officials who, in my modest opinion, are dealing with this very difficult department in a masterly fashion. We say thank you very much to them.

If the number of food producers of this country has already dropped to the alarming figure of approximately 70 000, and this group of people is being held responsible for feeding the rapidly growing population and in addition to have a surplus of food as a strategic weapon; if they are being held responsible for providing raw materials to a large percentage of our industries; if they are being held responsible for employing large numbers of people in agriculture, populating the platteland and conserving the soil for the future, acting as buffers along the old and new borders of our country, producing in order to supplement currency, as we have already heard, and if they are going to be held responsible for making a cultural contribution towards the nation and practising their indispensable profession without the facilities of the city with its lights, I want to state categorically this afternoon that these people are priceless jewels and therefore deserve special treatment from the authorities.

Now it is true that even if these people should be given all the recognition and compassionate treatment, the alarming situation still exists that in spite of fine young farmers, we are still searching for a lost generation of food producers.

Two years ago I carried out a survey in one of the districts in my constituency and to my consternation I discovered that the average age of farmers in that District was 58 years.

Many reasons can be submitted for this state of affairs, but one of the most important reasons is all the factors that complicate hereditary succession in agriculture. The industrial development of our country, the manpower shortage, the fluctuating rainfall pattern, the high inputs that are required these days, are all factors which influence hereditary succession in agriculture.

However, the influence of estate duties are developing into an absolute hindrance to this industry. During this session, estate duty has been discussed on various occasions and therefore I do not want to cover the same field again, but the agriculturalists of the country are now looking for the support of their own Minister in the hope that he may be able to convince the Cabinet of the tremendous danger which this duty entails for the food producers and the food production of the future. There was a time when estate duty was paid by the rich man only, but at the present moment, practically every farmer and practically all private entrepreneurs are candidates for estate duty.

If we want to combat the communist onslaught against our country effectively, it is absolutely essential that we should not only protect private ownership and one-man businesses, but encourage them.

Estate duty has created a psychosis of fear amongst our farmers, and as a result of this psychosis our farmers are being exploited by bodies who for their own gain are offering solutions to farmers which in actual fact are not solutions.

Insurance cover in order to make estates less vulnerable to this tax, are costing our farmers thousands of rands, money which could be much better spent on production and development. The formation of farming companies too, goes against the grain of the individualistic farmer and is in fact not such a good solution either, because once again it affects his position with the Land Bank.

I have here figures relating to a specific farmer who had an inventory of his estate drawn up in the year 1970. He has a wife and four children, and in 1970 his total estate amounted to R210 000. Without having purchased any additional land, and with the same quantity of cattle and implements, the same estate was worth R700 000 in 1980. If he died in 1970, his estate duty would have been R17 500, whilst it would have been R83 417 if he had died in 1980. If he had died this year, it would have been much more. This man’s initiative is being totally suppressed by this duty which is calculated on his capital value. As a result of the drop in the value of money the capital value has increased by such a large amount that the farmer simply cannot manage. At the end of his life his estate is subject to taxation and cash that the farmer never made in his life is claimed from the estate.

I do not think there is a single private entrepreneur who would like to see the Exchequer losing the R60 million which is being budgeted for this taxation this year, but I am convinced that no entrepreneur would be unwilling to compensate the fiscus in another manner, as long as it is simply a tax that is levied during the lifetime of the person.

I do not want to make recommendations in this regard. The taxation experts have been working on it themselves for long enough. However, I am asking for the maintenance and encouragement of private ownership, and I am very pleased to read in the Press that the organized trade has already raised its voice in regard to this matter and has expressed concern about it. Estate duty has become a fine imposed for initiative and hard work.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to congratulate the hon. member for Queenstown on his maiden speech. He is a member whose reputation preceded him in this House. He was previously very much involved in organized agriculture and I am sure that farmers in this country are very pleased to have a man of his knowledge and experience in this House. I should also like to associate myself with his remarks on succession in agriculture. This is, of course, a very vexing problem. I share many of his views on this subject, and I certainly hope that we on this side of the House can work with that hon. member in an attempt to find some solution to this problem.

I should now like to turn to a few misconceptions which the hon. member for Barberton and the hon. member for Ventersdorp seem to have. I am referring to the fact that they think that we advocate the scrapping of control boards. That is not the case at all. All we are doing, is to suggest that the entire field of marketing and distribution should be investigated by a committee or commission which can then make recommendations. Perhaps that can be included in the terms of reference of the commission which the hon. the Minister spoke about today.

Do you know about the commission three years ago?

Yes, I do. I should also like to suggest one thing as far as the commission is concerned, viz. that the commission should consist of independent people, so that we do not end up with the situation of people investigating themselves, like we had with the Meat Board in South West Africa.

It was a unanimous report.

I should like to turn today to the question of one channel, fixed price schemes in South Africa. In this regard I want to refer specifically to maize. I picked maize because it is the staple food of a large proportion of our population and it is also one of the main inputs in the production of milk, eggs, meat, butter, poultry and those types of products. Because of this, the manner in which the price is determined can in fact be an extremely sensitive issue, as the hon. the Minister himself is no doubt aware. We usually have an average of approximately 2 million tons of maize to export every year, and the average price on the export markets is usually lower than the local price. Because of this, fanners contribute to a stabilization fund to subsidize these export losses. Much criticism has been levelled at the method of price determination, at the Maize Board and also at the Government. I admit right now that much of this criticism has not really been warranted or justified. Today, however, I should like to outline some of the problems involved in setting the maize price and I should also like to give an alternative at which I hope the hon. the Minister will have a look. At present the maize price is determined by the hon. the Minister each year, in consultation with the Maize Board, organized agriculture and other interested parties. They also take into consideration supply and demand, as well as overseas export prices. Three points emerge from this. The first point is that the Government is involved in setting prices, and therefore they are not going to escape any criticism, whether the criticism is justified or not. The question which we should ask ourselves, is: “Has the State or the Government any business with regard to the setting of prices?” I say that the State should not be involved in this at all. This is in line with the philosophy of free enterprise which the Government in fact advocates. The second point is that all cost escalations are automatically built into the maize price. In the long run prices are determined by supply and demand, and costs have nothing whatsoever to do with the price. When one goes out to buy a suit, one either takes it at the price at which it is offered, or one leaves it. One does not ask the shopkeeper how much it cost to produce that particular suit. One effect of setting prices in this way has been a rapid escalation in land values. We are all aware of it. The reason is that the profitability of maize farming is virtually guaranteed by taking production costs as a basis for setting prices. Anyone who disputes that maize farming is profitable, only has to look at rentals for maize land.

The Department of Agriculture conducted a survey some time back and found rentals from R100 upwards on maize land. Capitalized, that puts land values at R1 000 and upwards per ha. We all know that these are the prices, and rentals in fact represent pure profits from maize farming.

By determining prices in this way, we are in fact falling into the old classical problem of whether the price of maize is high because the price of land is high, or whether the price of land is high because the price of maize is high. Obviously, the position should be that the price of land is high because the price of maize is high. The demand for land is a derived demand and, as such, depends on the final demand for maize. There is thus no real justification at all for using production costs to determine prices. A further side-effect—this has been mentioned in the House today—is that the high land values make it difficult for young farmers to enter agriculture. It also to a certain extent leads to decreasing numbers of young farmers on the land.

The third point I should like to come to is that, when we talk of using production costs to determine prices, we must ask ourselves: Whose production costs? The production costs of the farmer in the Western Transvaal? The production costs of the farmer in the Eastern Free State? Alternatively, do we take an average? None of these is correct, because there is no such thing as a typical, average farmer. So, in using production costs, we will always find some farmers who are better off and others who are in fact going to be worse off. One other side-effect of using production costs to determine prices is that, because profits to a large extent are guaranteed, quite often we find farmers ploughing areas which should not be ploughed or cultivated whatsoever. This, of course, leads to erosion and also in fact to the misallocation of resources, because resources are used in maize production which should have been used in the production of other commodities.

I should now like to offer an alternative system to that of fixing maize prices as such. Before doing that, however, I should like to carry on from where the hon. member for Mooi River left off. That is to say, I should like to look at the cost of inputs. Our fertilizer, for instance, is’ more expensive than the price at which we can import fertilizer. Maybe it is necessary for strategic reasons to subsidize our local industry. If that is the case, however, the farmer should not have to pay that cost. That is a cost which should then be borne by society as a whole, because society has in fact deemed it necessary for strategic reasons. Other input costs, for instance for insecticides, weedicides and agricultural machinery, are also all higher than the cost at which we could in fact import them. I believe that a lot of these industries in this country are very, very highly cartellized and that the Government should have a serious look at these industries to see that they put their house in order. A further factor is the cost of diesoline. This was also mentioned by the hon. member for Mooi River. If we expect our farmers to provide cheap food and to compete with overseas farmers, we must put them in a fair competitive position so that the prices they pay are the same as those their overseas counterparts pay.

Finally, with regard to price determination, I believe we would be far better off with a floor-price scheme for maize and, combined with our floor-price scheme, we established a “future’s market”. I do not want to go into the actual operation of a future’s market here. I believe that anybody involved in agriculture should in fact know how this works. It is an accurate method of determining prices. It gives farmers future prices on which they can work. It also enables farmers to eliminate risk and uncertainty through hedging operations and future’s contracts. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me as well to extend a cordial welcome to the hon. the Minister in his new portfolio and to congratulate him on his appointment to this important post. I myself am also in the particularly fortunate position to be able to say this afternoon that he and I have already come a long way together. We were together for a short while in the Transvaal Provincial Council. Irrespective of the fact that he can to a great extent be said to come from my part of the world, I am extremely grateful and proud that he is occupying this position today, the highest position in agriculture in the Republic of South Africa. Both he and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries have on occasion addressed farmers’ meetings in my constituency, and this afternoon I feel free to say that they both know and understand the language of the farmers. So the farmers understand them too, and are very happy with them.

I now want to put the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, who has just finished talking, into the picture as well. Since his arrival here in the House I have been watching him with interest. I have always found it very interesting to observe how seriously—at times even with concern—he treats matters. The way in which he spoke about agriculture today—whether he criticized or agreed—was fair. I want to tell him that I like his approach, and that I am certain that the hon. the Minister will reply to all the questions he raised. One particular statement he made, and which is a matter which also concerns me, is that it is becoming increasingly difficult for a young man to enter the farming industry. One sometimes wonders what the solution to this problem is. I think one of the solutions is that the father will have to ensure that his son follows in his footsteps and remains on the farm to carry on with the farming enterprise.

While I was jotting down my ideas for my speech it just so happened, quite by chance, that I found myself agreeing to a great extent with the hon. member for Queenstown, who has just made his maiden speech.

This afternoon I want to make an appeal to the young farmers of South Africa to remain in the farming industry. I want to make an appeal to young aspirant farmers to give serious consideration to making it their task to enter the industry. It is generally known—it has become a statement that is generally made—that the farming population declined by almost 10 000 during the past decade, between 1970 and 1980. This is well-known. But what is not well-known is the fact, the distressing fact, the perturbing fact that the average age of farmers in the industry is constantly rising; in other words, that there are fewer young farmers in the industry. I have statistics at my disposal which read as follows. In the period 1970 to 1974 a total of 615 farmers left the industry because it was no longer worth their while. During the period 1974 to 1977—i.e. in a period of three years—this number grew to 5 494, after a further 4 879 farmers no longer saw their way clear to carrying on with their farming enterprise. It is disturbing to note that of the farmers who remained in the industry only a very small percentage were young farmers, something which bodes ill for the future of agriculture. In 1970 the figures indicating age categories were as follows. These are unfortunately the most recent age categories of farmers I could find. But I do not think that the picture has changed much since then. In 1970 there were a total of 856 farmers under the age of 20 years. In the age group 20 years to 24 years there were 3 972 farmers in South Africa. In the age group 25 to 34 years the number of farmers was 12 178. That means that in the age group between 18 and 34 years we find 21% of the total number of farmers. In the age group 34 to 44 years there were 15 270 farmers; and in the age group 45 to 54 years there were 17 187 farmers. This represents 39%.

Now we come to the largest percentage representation of the farmers. In the age group 55 to 64 years there were 19 401 farmers and in the age group 65 years and older—please note that this is the retirement age of most people, when they relax, when they retire and take things easy—there were 11 705 farmers. This represents 40%. Although as I have said, the most recent figures are not available, there is reason to believe that the picture will still be more or less the same. Whereas the total number of farmers in 1970 was more or less 80 000, this figure is now plus-minus 70 000. So I want to tell the young farmers this afternoon that there is a future for them. Not only is there a future for them, but they also have a task to perform for South Africa.

From now onwards it will not be cannons, bombs or machine guns, but food that will be the mechanism which will preserve and decide world peace. Food will be the lever for statesmen to use whenever they meet and negotiate agreements. The world population is increasing. Recently the UN compiled a report which reads as follows—

The report continues—

The report also alleges that every year 15 million children under the age of five die, and half of them die of malnutrition.

I therefore want to tell the young fanners of South Africa that it lies within their grasp, that it is their wonderful task, that it is their wonderful future to help resolve this problem for the world and for South Africa. As far as South Africa is concerned, I have here a report under the heading “Massa hongersnood Suid-Afrika se voorland”. I do not want to agree with this completely, because I have confidence in the young farmers of South Africa. They will prevent this prediction from coming true. Nevertheless the factual information in this report is as follows—

I think it is time African leaders began to realize this, and began to say to the world and themselves: Leave the Republic of South Africa alone because in Africa the Republic of South Africa is in fact an adornment and a granary for Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the world of the salary earner when pay-day gets closer, one speaks of the spectre which is doing the rounds again. I want to tell you that here in the back-benches recently a spectre has also been wandering about, a spectre which has nothing to do with salaries and since our maiden speeches are almost a thing of the past now, we want to express the hope that this spectre, too, will now be laid to rest.

At the very outset I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon. members of this House for the understanding with which they have ushered us newcomers into this new world. Their kindness and patience are greatly appreciated. As the representative of the Humansdorp constituency I follow in the footsteps of a much loved and esteemed former member of this House, Mr. George Malan. According to many testimonials I met with here, he served this House in a most excellent manner. He also served his constituency with distinction for a long period of 15 years. We should like to pay tribute to this man and wish him every success and good fortune in the years which lie ahead.

For the sake of the newcomers to this House in particular I should like to tell you something about my constituency. It has an interesting and rich variety of people varying from urban dwellers to retired intellectuals and magnates; yes, even hon. members of this House who have moved in quietly and settled there. The forestry workers and the agriculturalists, however, form the bulk of the rural population. I do not have the impressive production figures of the hon. member for Caledon, but there is certainly no lack of latent potential. It stretches from the outskirts of Port Elizabeth down the coast to Plettenberg Bay, a coast-line of over 250 km with all its latent possibilities for holiday resorts and recreation. Adjoining this and parallel to it we find a strip with relatively high rainfall which is particularly suitable for agriculture and forestry. The natural forests of Tsitsikamma and Knysna are well-known to everyone for their beauty and their exceptional value. Moving inland, one finds that it is separated from the Karroo by wild inhospitable mountain ranges, with ravines opening out into the most beautiful valleys with fertile soil. Here amongst the Kouga Mountains and the Baviaanskloof Mountains live people who still have the courage to make a living there in spite of the hardship and the isolation. It is thanks to their perserverance that these areas can still be utilized usefully and productively. However, it is also these parts which are hard hit from time to time by natural disasters. Engineers express the intensity of floods in terms of the expected intervals between such floods. For example they speak of floods with a cycle of 100 years or 200 years. However, the floods in the southern and eastern Cape do not wait for 200 years to recur. No, Sir; they come whenever they feel like it. I should like to mention that we had such a destructive flood in the Gamtoos Valley in 1971, another in 1979, another in March 1980 and just as a bonus, another one two months later in May 1981. For interest’s sake I can also mention that all access roads and all causeways were partially or completely washed away. I maintain that if the Government had not come forward in those cases with comprehensive aid measures, many of those farmers would not have been able to make the grade on their own. That is why it is my pleasant task today to convey a particular word of thanks and appreciation on behalf of these farmers to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and in fact to the entire Cabinet for the assistance which was in fact offered. These measures are enabling the farmers there to produce and to get back on their feet again.

This brings me to the point which is of the greatest importance to us as farmers—it has already been emphasized here this afternoon—namely stability in the agricultural industry. I consider it absolutely essential that this House do everything in its power to promote stability in agriculture. In saying this I do not wish to suggest that this is not the case. As a matter of fact I wish to express appreciation, on behalf of the farmers of South Africa—this has also already been done this afternoon—to the Cabinet for the amount of understanding which exists for the problems of the agricultural industry in general. This was again proved recently when the hon. the Minister of Finance announced ample concessions for various industries which are at present experiencing difficulties.

It is important that we try to establish a farming community which is as far as possible financially sound and independent. It makes one very uneasy to see how many farming families fritter away their farming units for a very attractive sum of money which in the long run turns out to be not all that attractive. I ask whether it is right that even overseas companies—I want the hon. the Minister to take cognizance of this—should move in and take over our farms. We cannot find fault with a domestic change of ownership provided it goes hand in hand with greater efficiency and higher productivity.

The problem is, however, that the capital needs of agriculture have increased so phenomenally that for the young farmer who is not a man of substantial means, it has become virtually impossible to enter the industry. The previous hon. speaker also referred to this. Fortunately, under the guidance of the present Government, we have the opportunity to help young farmers on a limited scale to enter the industry on easy terms.

I have said that a stable agricultural industry is essential in the long-term for the sound continued existence of any country and particularly in our case in view of our strategic position here at the southernmost tip of Africa. For this reason we as agriculturists are very concerned at the direct and indirect attacks which are being launched from various quarters on our existing marketing set-up for agricultural produce. The existing system of orderly marketing as incorporated in the Marketing Act and supported by the control boards and the co-operative system gives the South African farmer that degree of certainty and stability which is so essential to him.

It is interesting to know that calculated in gross monetary value—now I come to the percentages quoted by the hon. the member for Wynberg and I must point out that my percentages differ slightly, but they do not change the overall picture—77% of all agricultural produce is controlled in terms of the existing control boards. I think he said 75%. A further 9% are controlled by means of other legislation, while the gross value of uncontrolled agricultural produce only comprises 14% of the grand total. This proves the importance of our controlled marketing system for the industry as a whole. Anyone interfering with it, is looking for trouble with the farmers. In addition we also believe that it is in the best interests of the farmer and the consumer because it ensures consistent and continued production.

Apparently there are, however, factions that do not like this orderliness and stability, with the result that from time to time we have attacks from outside on our system. However, I wish to advocate that this matter should always be approached with the greatest circumspection and responsibility. Let our criticism be constructive and rational. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure, on behalf of this side of the House, to congratulate the hon. member for Humansdorp on his maiden speech. We wish him well. The hon. member, like the hon. member for Queenstown, has also for many years been deeply involved in organized agriculture, and I am sure that his career in this House will be successful.

I should like to raise the vexed question of wages and work conditions of Black farm labourers in South Africa. This is, for a number of reasons, a sensitive field. Firstly, farmers are large-scale employers of Black labour. Secondly, there have been a number of accusations or allegations of maltreatment and exploitation levelled against the farming community in the past. Thirdly, Black agricultural labourers have no protection under the law, neither do they, to my knowledge, have any specific trade union through which their rights could be protected and extended. However, I believe that this is no reason why we should not debate the whole question. In fact, it is high time that the matter was given a good airing. This must, however, be done in a responsible manner. We need a fair appraisal of the situation, particularly in regard to the system of remunerating farm labour. We need constructive suggestions as to how it can be improved where necessary.

In many parts of the country payments are made in cash and kind. The farmer very often also assumes responsibility for the overall welfare of his staff, and this includes the provision of medical and educational facilities. It is a system that can be rather unkindly called paternalistic or neo-feudal and can be much criticized. The practice of making payments in kind has been called degrading, humiliating and exploitive. Is this criticism warranted? It is a system which reminds one rather of the little girl with a curl in the middle of her forehead—when it is good, it is very, very good, but when it is bad, it is horrid. Much depends on the nature and extent of the extra-monetary payment. If the cash wage is relatively low, the payments in kind are significant. By significant I would mean generous grazing or ploughing rights, adequate housing, fair rations of meat, milk and carbohydrates, adequate provision of protective clothing and a sympathetic response to medical, educational, recreational and religious needs. All of these, together with reasonable working hours, holiday allowances and bonuses, a normal and unbroken family fife and healthy and interesting work out of doors, make farm life for the Black labourer a reasonably attractive proposition. I believe that little, if any, serious criticism can be levelled at these circumstances because the labourer becomes, in a sense, a shareholder in the farm, and his dividends take the form of surplus livestock and produce sold to good advantage. Why is it, I often wonder, that when business houses give fringe benefits to their staff, they are considered generous and altruistic, but when farmers do it they are accused of being paternalistic? [Interjections.] I do not agree. I know of very few farmers who would not themselves prefer to change over to a “cash only” system of remuneration as it is far less complicated and easier to administer.

Despite this criticism, I believe that at all times the farmer will continue to remain concerned about the welfare of his workers and, unlike his urban counterpart, will continue to hold himself responsible for the welfare of his staff 24 hours a day. This is not paternalism; it is just plain human decency. There will be exceptions, and to claim that all farmers have nothing but the milk of human kindness flowing undiluted through their veins, would be no less ludicrous than to claim that all farmers are brutal exploiters. We should avoid these generalizations and attempt, in so far as it is possible, to restrict ourselves to facts.

Let us have a look at some of the figures on farm wages that has been made available through a recent Government survey. Six areas were surveyed, and of these the Rûens area in the Western Cape came out top with an average monthly payment of R146. Comparisons are always odious, but one should nonetheless have a look at these figures. The worst was the Eastern Free State with R58 per month. Incidentally, free housing was not taken into account in working out these figures. This illustrates just how unwise it is to generalize about farm wages. There are huge differences in the various parts of the country. Whilst I would not suggest that R146 paid in the Rûens area constitutes a king’s ransom, I would suggest that in relative terms it is not all that bad.

It is on a par with the pay of a Black private in the Defence Force, for example. I further suggest that there are few agricultural workers throughout the rest of Africa who would not jump at the opportunity of working for even the R58 paid in the Free State. We in the farming world do not, however, want to derive any kind of cheap comfort from comparing ourselves with the lowest or the worst in the world. We want our labour force to be the best-paid and the happiest. There are, however, certain problems.

If we were to introduce a system of “cash only” wages overnight, and demand that wages should for example be doubled, enforcing this in terms of minimum wage legislation, I predict that there would firstly be a massive reduction in farm labour. I would go so far as to say that it would be a reduction of between 50% and 100%. There would also be an unprecedented increase in the mechanization of agricultural activities and there would consequently be extensive unemployment in the rural areas. We need more jobs in this country, however, not fewer jobs. Any practice that leads to unemployment should therefore be discouraged.

In South Africa there is a further complicating factor. Because of our influx control laws, the mobility of farm labour is severely impeded. Farm labourers are particularly hard hit by this lack of mobility. If they cannot find alternative employment on another farm, they must run the gauntlet of the influx control laws in town, or else face the socio-economic rigours of the homelands. So an unhealthy situation does exist.

We should remember that Blacks in White rural areas account for just under half of the 9,5 million Blacks who live in the common area of South Africa. This means that the 70 000 White farmers in South Africa are maintaining 4,3 million Blacks, or just over 60 Blacks per farmer. Whilst the situation is one that can be exploited, it is also a situation in which the farmers themselves are making a great socio-economic contribution. But, coming back to the exploitive aspect, when we see that the average wage in the eastern Free State is R54 per month, we realize that many of the farmers in that area might probably be paying a lot less. We must accept that this is indefensible and does the image of the farmer no good at all. What, however, is to be done about it?

Firstly, I believe that we should move away from a system that builds “payment in kind” into the basic wage. I believe that grazing rights and the like should be regarded as prerequisites of farm labour. They should be inducements, in much the same way as fringe benefits are considered inducements for employees in urban companies. These should only be taken into account after an acceptable basic wage is paid.

Secondly, I believe that the imposition of a minimum wage should not be considered until such time as the mobility of farm labour in terms of influx control legislation has been normalized.

Thirdly, I find it interesting that organized agriculture is starting to pay increasing attention to matters relating to the conditions of service of farm labour. Witness, for example, the minimum wages for sheep-shearers which organized agriculture monitors in the Karoo. I believe that increasingly farmers will put their own house in order and that this, combined with the advantages emanating from increased competition with the urban areas, will hasten the day when little if any criticism can be justifiably levelled at the South African farmer. At the same time, I wonder whether the time has not perhaps come for us to consider a commission of inquiry into the whole question of farm labour, a Wiehahn-type commission which could investigate and advise. We would be the first to put our house in order if and when this is at all necessary or possible in practice.

Mr. Chairman, I listened very attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Albany. Basically I can find no fault with it. On the contrary, I agree wholeheartedly with him regarding the things he discussed. Incidentally, part of my speech links up very nicely with what he said. I should like to approach farm labour from another angle.

Labour resources, or the human factor, is agriculture’s most important asset, because land, resources and methods cannot be utilized without the necessary labour. This is how Messrs. Franzsen and Reynders put it in their work Die ekonomiese lewe in Suid-Afrika. Recently in particular, agriculture has been experiencing an acute shortage of this asset. Partial solutions could possibly be found by means of advance planning, and perhaps through better labour management, and the inclusion of other branches of industry, which can then use surplus-period labour on a sound basis. The greatest problem, however, is that of productivity and training of labourers. It is well-known that productivity in the agricultural sector is particularly low. Low productivity and unskilled labour can lead to poverty and therefore also indirectly affects the welfare of those people. In the final instance it can also be said that labour as a resource in agriculture has become a very heavy financial burden during the past decade, especially under the pressure of the effort to narrow the wage gap. In a mixed market system such as that in South Africa, a system built on the basis of capitalism the only justification for a wage increase is better work, in other words, greater productivity. A further problem is that demands for higher wages give rise to mechanization, i.e. the replacement of human labour by capital goods. In practice this leads to a higher rate of unemployment. Labour is scarce, and it is becoming increasingly expensive as higher demands are made, especially by the Western way of life, which is being followed by the Blacks, and the resultant increase in economic and general welfare. We must therefore strive for better and higher productivity, and this can be achieved mainly by the use of better and skilled, trained labourers. In the Transvaal there is a well-equipped training centre for farm labourers at Boskop near Potchefstroom. We farmers are becoming increasingly aware of the advantage of trained labour, especially if it is borne in mind that expensive equipment must be left in the hands of labourers. The Boskop Centre can no longer be considered the only training centre for farm labourers. Urgent provision must be made for a further training centre or centres, and this is where my request applies. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give urgent consideration to the establishment of a training centre on the eastern Highveld of the Transvaal. I wish to suggest that the State make its contribution, and take the lead, but that the farmer and his co-operative also be given an opportunity to have a real share in the establishment of such centres. I am aware that the cooperative of which I am a member, namely the Eastern Transvaal Co-operative—the ETC as it is generally known—is particularly interested and will definitely make a contribution in the interests of its members. We cannot postpone this matter any longer, and I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would give very serious attention to this request.

I should also like to discuss a further aspect of agriculture, namely the provision of credit. In South Africa many investigations are carried out into the drought question, the degree of instability and the physical factors which contribute to the high degree of instability that characterizes production, and the most important questions facing South African agriculture, inter alia, the provision of credit.

As is generally known, stability in agriculture is of great importance because it limits indirect credit loans and provision of credit in agriculture, although it cannot completely exclude these things. In the first place one must consider capital goods, i.e. production requisites produced over a period of time which are used as aids in the production of goods and services. These include, inter alia, buildings, machinery, roads and railway lines. Such production does not always satisfy immediate needs, but in the course of time it aids the production process.

Capital can be divided into two main groups. The first is financial capital, which involves cash funds needed to purchase capital goods. In the second place there is real capital, which is the actual capital used in the production process. Real capital can be subdivided in turn, in the first place into floating capital. This involves capital used up in one production process, for example, the purchase of seed, fuel, fertilizers and weed-killers. It is also known as non-durable capital. The other sort of real capital is fixed capital which consists of durable production agents which can be used for more than one production process, for example tractors and implements. We can also include the capital needed for the purchase of land, which has become particularly scarce recently because next to precious metals, land has become the most attractive investment, and also due to its unavailability, as the land is not increasing in size. There are more people, and more food has to be produced, but more and more land is being used for purposes other than agriculture, tor example to build roads, railway lines, towns and cities, and for mining. All this has meant that the market value of land has risen to such an extent that it requires a great deal of capital. We can therefore see that agriculture has great capital needs which can create a major problem and which are absolutely essential for the production process.

Solutions to this problem regarding capital are, inter alia, to increase the capital contribution by human means, i.e. by means of saving, which can be defined as producing more products than can immediately be used. This is almost the only method of capital formation. It can also be done by accelerated capital formation, which means that capital goods are the best means whereby to increase the production capacity and more can therefore be produced than can be consumed at once. The agricultural industry in South Africa was initially labour intensive, but as agriculture developed, capital in all its forms began to constitute an important part of the production process. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am certain that the hon. the Minister will give very careful attention to the request of the hon. member for Middelburg in connection with the training of farm labourers and the provision of agricultural credit.

I always try not to accuse anyone of anything unless I am very sure of my facts. I must say that I have gained the indelible impression that the hon. members of the official Opposition have a total lack of sensitivity for the agricultural industry. This is a primary industry in the country’s economy and it seems to me as if they do not quite understand the problems arising in connection with this industry. The hon. member for Wynberg—I am very sorry he is not present at the moment—also referred very insensitively to the problem of so-called uneconomic units. He set out the problem, but he did not give any solution to it. Actually that is typical of the official Opposition. They set out the problem but do not suggest any solution. Of course that is the easiest way. Then one need not accept any responsibility either.

Today I should like to say a few words about the concept of uneconomic farming units. In the first place, I want to point out that it has nothing to do with the size of the farm or farming unit, but it involves the viability of the income which can be obtained from that unit. Primarily therefore the income which can be derived from such a unit. The Agricultural Credit Board and the Land Bank have stipulated a minimum income which can be obtained—if I remember correctly—from about 1 400 small stock units. However, there is also another concept in agriculture. This is the concept of optimum size. It is a fact that if a farming unit is too small, the production efficiency per unit area drops. If the optimum size is exceeded, the same applies, i.e. production per unit begins to drop. However, this is only true in the broader sense, because it naturally depends on the managerial ability of the farmer whether he can handle such a large farm and whether he can also produce efficiently on a smaller unit and provide his necessities of life. The size of the farm is therefore not the issue. What is of importance to me in this connection is the managerial ability, the managerial expertise, of an entrepreneur in agriculture.

Another factor which is also decisive with regard to the question of uneconomic units is the family commitments of a specific entrepreneur, irrespective of whether he has three or four children at university or whether he has no commitments. It also depends on the burden of debt he has to bear. The smaller the burden of debt the farmer has to bear, the greater the net farming income supplied by his farm which he can devote to his family commitments. In the fourth instance—in my opinion the most important—there is the standard of living which the specific farmer is prepared to maintain. If a specific entrepreneur is prepared to get by with a low standard of living, then in that case, too, that small farm is for him an economic unit and not an uneconomic unit. It is therefore evident that we must be careful and not talk insensitively about this question of uneconomic agricultural units.

I also want to refer briefly to what the hon. member for Greytown said in a previous debate regarding smallholdings. I want to make it quite clear that I do not in any way consider smallholdings to be uneconomic farming units, because the purpose of smallholdings is completely different to that of small farms. Smallholdings are mainly used for residential purposes and not for production purposes. The social problems which have arisen in regard to smallholdings and the causes thereof are also completely different to those of small farms. In this regard I am therefore not referring in any way to smallholdings. I do not believe that they really belong in the sphere of agriculture.

The greatest problem arising from a large number of uneconomic agricultural units can in my opinion be ascribed to the phenomenon that in South African agriculture we have a extremely distorted income pattern. We have frequently heard the comparison that 20% of the producers in South Africa earn 80% of the income obtained from agriculture. It may be that the arithmetic mean of the income of farmers does not seem all that bad, but when we look at the distribution, we note that there are a large number of farmers who have a very low income. Some people even talk about a poor White problem in the agricultural industry—even today. It is estimated that of the 70 000 farming units in South Africa agriculture, at least 40 000 can be described as so-called uneconomic farming units. Another related factor is the fact that income in agriculture, relative to that of other occupations with comparable training qualifications, is remarkably low. In Britain it is estimated that the income of farmers is only 65% of that of artisans. Note that farmers in Britain are compared with artisans. In South Africa, to the best of my knowledge, there are no specific figures in this connection, but they are presumably more or less the same as those in Britain.

I do not want to go into detail today about the reasons why agriculture has lagged behind as regards income, but perhaps I should just say to hon. members that elasticity of the demand for agricultural products is one of the factors, and it is very clear to me that the official Opposition frequently does not understand this in their arguments. If the salary of the hon. member for Wynberg is increased by 50%, he does not buy 50% more food. He cannot eat more maize porridge than a certain given amount. He can buy luxury motor-cars, but he cannot eat more.

The Progs only eat caviar.

He can of course eat more caviar.

A further phenomenon which is closely linked to the phenomenon of uneconomic units is the rapid depopulation of the rural areas. The Government is frequently accused of allowing agriculture to be depopulated too rapidly. I do not want to take up too much of the hon. members’ time discussing this, but today there are only 70 000 farmers left and only 8% of the White population lives on farms. The main reason for this is that in a strong economy with a powerful agricultural sector, migration principles have a very strong effect. Economic factors are the main reason for migration and this can be related specifically to the phenomenon of uneconomic units.

However, the Government is not that irresponsible. It cannot allow the number of farmers in the rural areas or the number of White persons in the rural areas to drop too much. The first important reason is that they form a security factor. Our entire security set-up is important, and along our borders in particular we must keep our farms populated. It is a fact that if the number of farmers in a certain district drops below a certain point, the entire infrastructure of that district may collapse. This is so because the entire existence of such a district, the provision of services, business undertakings and the like, is dependent on the farming community. For this reason we cannot allow the number of farmers to dwindle too much. In the third and most important instance, we in this country cannot allow the population ratio of Whites to people of colour in the rural areas to become too extreme.

In the short time still at my disposal I briefly want to provide the solution to this problem, as I see it, to hon. members. The first concerns what we must not do. I underline the word “not”. We must not try to reduce the number of farmers any further “mechanically”. An important step has already been taken in that the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act has been drafted to prevent land from being further fragmented, thus resulting in more problematic uneconomic units.

The solution to this is, in the first place, to enlarge the existing units by providing a more dynamic credit supply. The other day we accepted the Agricultural Credit Act in this House, which in my opinion meets this requirement, so that farmers, and particularly the smaller farmer, will be able to compete with bigger farmers in agriculture as regards the purchase of available land.

In the second place, the co-operative idea must be promoted as much as possible, especially at production level.

In the third place, we must not discount the contribution of part-time farming to an increase in the family income of farmers in the rural areas.

In the fourth place—and in my opinion this is the most important aspect—we must improve managerial efficiency. For this reason we welcome the announcement by the hon. the Minister concerning the coordinating of research and extension to all the sectors involved. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Mooi River and other hon. members concerning the former Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. We wish the present hon. Minister every success in probably the most difficult portfolio dealing with the best people

Stop bragging.

Yes, we are blowing our own trumpet. If nobody else wants to say it, I suppose we have to say it ourselves.

To return now to the hon. member Dr. Odendaal, I should like to follow up some of the remarks made by him in regard to the question of the depopulation of the platteland because this is, in fact, one of the two points I should like to cover. In referring firstly to this question of the depopulation of the platteland, because this is, in fact, one of the two points I should like to cover. In referring firstly to this question of the depopulation of the platteland, I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the second report of the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture, known as the Marais Commission. There is some confusion in my mind in this regard, however, because some people call it the Du Plessis Commission. I think this report was submitted in 1966. As long ago as that, the remarks of this commission in regard to this very important subject were, to say the least, very serious. The commission stated, inter alia, that it regarded the question of the depopulation of the platteland as so alarming that it wished to make the following recommendations—

There are also many other recommendations in this regard by the commission, one of which is very pertinent, namely—

The commission goes on at great length and with great insight to discuss the whole question of establishing young men on farms, so much so that one is led to ask why, in fact, after the passage of so many years we appear not to have come up with a workable scheme or at least to have launched some pilot scheme or other which would in fact be reversing this trend and be being applied on a very stable basis. One is aware of the efforts made by the department in relation to the north-west borders of the Republic, the question of resettlement there and also of the tremendous sums of money that are required to implement such a scheme. It is for this reason that I believe that we should look very urgently to the introduction of schemes throughout the country on a district by district basis before we reach the stage where vast amounts of money will be required to rehabilitate farms and farming units that have become neglected. As the hon. the Minister correctly stated, the effect of decisions taken now will only be felt some 10 or 15 years hence. We have heard mention made in this House today of the ever-rising average age of people throughout the platteland and I believe that this question is one of so much urgency that we should be looking at a co-operative, integrated scheme using farmers’ associations, organized agriculture and soil conservation committees to identify units on a district by district basis which could in fact be purchased by the State and on which schemes can be started for the settlement of young farmers on a lease basis. Perhaps this could be initially on the basis of learner-farmers for a specific period. These farmers could then gain experience in this way and move on subsequently to other farms which they could then lease and so advance from property to property within a district under the eagle eye of soil conservation committees and local farming bodies. In this way these young people could be introduced in all of these areas. By utilizing certain pilot schemes we could then discover which methods would suit which area best.

I am quite certain of the fact that—certainly in the area I come from—there are very many properties which could be acquired by the State without interfering too much with the free-market system and the question of the inflationary tendencies as far as land values are concerned. Certainly the reintroduction of young people into the platteland is something we cannot waste any more time on. It is something that I believe that the Government, and especially this department, should give serious attention to. It can only be adequately achieved with the local knowledge of organizations that are aware of the exact requirements and have some knowledge of whether properties can be utilized properly or not. So much for that.

The second point I should like to raise is, I believe, equally a practical suggestion, not only to those young farmers who might settle there and find themselves faced with drought conditions, but also to reasonably well-established farmers. I refer to the various phases of drought relief, because it is my experience, and that of many individuals in my district, that the whole matter appears to take too long to carry out. It is too unwieldy and goes through too many departments before being finalized. It places the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in a secondary light, as it were, almost in the capacity of a Cinderella department because one often finds that an extension officer’s opinions about an area are perhaps secondary to those of the Department of Justice. I do not want to knock the Department of Justice, but this department does not have a deciding voice on the matter. A pertinent situation did, in fact, arise in the Border area recently. The local magistrate, who did not have much of an idea about farming, turned an application down quite unnecessarily. The hon. the Minister is probably aware of that case.

In view of the shortage of time available to me, I want to come straight to the point by saying that when the first phase of the 75% railage rebate is granted, a considerable drought stricken passage of time has already elapsed and the farmer has found himself subject to considerable financial stress and strain owing to the failure of his winter feed and the fact that he has already invested in fertilizer and fuel and had to pay out money for wear and tear on his implements. In fact, his income for the next year has already been affected. Even though he has had to subject himself to considerable financial outlay, often he does not take advantage of the 75% rebate because he is trying to limit his overheads as much as possible, hoping that it will rain or whatever. I should like to suggest that phase 2, the fodder loan phase, should be available at that stage. I do not want to suggest that this should be done on a sort of hand-out basis, but simply that that money should be available for use to implement the 75% railage rebate, because by doing so the farmer would be in a position to feed his animals before their condition has deteriorated. Often the animals’ condition has already deteriorated by the time the farmer gets down to feeding them and the following year’s income—lambs, calves, wool crop or whatever—has already suffered a serious setback. This could, of course, have been avoided if provision had been made early enough to have brought about the sort of stability that is sought by the use of such State money. I am quite sure that if the second phase were introduced at that stage—purely the loan, because I am not talking about the subsidy—the situation could be alleviated. The repayment term is, of course, the important aspect as far as the farmer is concerned. The introduction of phase 2 together with phase 1 is therefore, in my view, extremely important.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to react to what the hon. member for King William’s Town said. He put a specific problem pertaining to the drought-stricken areas of his constituency to the hon. the Minister, and I believe that he will be given an adequate reply.

I should like to quote a paragraph or two from the latest report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, and say something about it. I am doing so with particular reference to the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech when he said that he would not like to see the number of farmers in South Africa dwindling, and that we had to keep as many of them as possible on the land and had to try to obtain maximum production from them. There is nothing wrong with those views and I do not believe that any hon. member in this House does not share the hon. the Minister’s opinion in this respect.

On page 5 of the abovementioned report we read the following—

In a nutshell this means that a country can make fantastic progress at the beginning of its agricultural development, but that the industry has eventually to display increasing expertise in order to maintain that progress.

Not only has it been said in this House today, but previously as well that if we want to continue to feed our population, we shall have to take cognizance of a few things. In the first place we shall have to ensure that we keep the most efficient farmer on the land, for we know that the number of farmers in South Africa who have received formal agricultural training is very low. We also know that most young men who receive agricultural training do not enter the agricultural industry, but find a livelihood elsewhere. Consequently, if we have to accept that most farmers have not had formal agricultural training, there is only one way to rectify the situation, i.e. by way of research, extension services and, if I may put it this way, constant in-service training in the agricultural industry. This will enable the farmer to keep abreast of the latest developments in the agricultural sphere so that he can utilize the latest results in order to improve the production potential of South Africa in this way. I believe this is self-evident.

In the second place we shall have to ensure that the 2 or 3 million non-White farm labourers are given better training as well, for it is of no avail if we display the best management ability and keep abreast of the latest developments in the industry if we are saddled with semi-skilled and unskilled labour on our farms which simply cannot make the grade. Consequently it is a prerequisite that the farm labourers are also effectively trained so that they, too, can make a greater contribution to the agricultural potential in South Africa.

The third prerequisite is surely that the farmer must be provided with the most inexpensive amount of operating capital or development capital which he requires to be able to engage in his occupation properly. I do not want to discuss that, for I am sure that other hon. members are going to discuss it and it has already been discussed in this debate.

There is yet another way in which we can improve our production potential in South Africa. I believe we must examine the extent of the damage which is being caused in our agricultural industry as a result of disease, plagues and parasites. It is calculated that ticks alone cause damage amounting to approximately R60 million to our cattle industry every year. We must examine our low lambing and calving percentage in South Africa. If one could exclude those diseases and plagues or restrict them to the minimum, surely we must be in a position to improve our production potential considerably. Even if we cannot take more out of our land or out of our pasturage, we can certainly save and improve by examining the damage we have sustained directly and indirectly in our agricultural industry as a result of a low lambing and calving percentage, which is often the result of disease. We are also sustaining damage as a result of deaths caused by and the ravages suffered from parasites. If we can eliminate this, we shall most certainly improve our production potential in South Africa.

This brings me to the next point. We cannot place this country, when it comes to our cattle industry in particular, on a sound basis unless we have sufficient veterinary surgeons in South Africa. I was really surprised to read in Die Burger of 18 July this year what Prof. C. F. B. Hofmeyr, Dean of the Faculty of Veterinary Science at the University of Pretoria had to say—

I do not want to quote everything that the professor said, but in his own words—

If this is the situation, I ask myself: Must we not, for example, control and curb the diseases to which our livestock are prone more effectively? If this is what the Dean of Veterinary Science at the University of Pretoria says, then this is a cause for great concern in future. He goes on to say—

I said that if we are unable to increase our available land and consequently cannot expand horizontally, we can improve vertically by ensuring that the damage we sustain as a result of disease problems etc., is less. I ask the hon. the Minister to bear this carefully in mind so that we can in this way improve our agricultural production in South Africa considerably.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks on the implementation of the legislation concerning the promotion of population density in areas known as designated areas. I want to refer to some of the provisions of this legislation which as yet have not been put into operation. I do so because, as we all know, not all the provisions of the legislation in question have thus far been implemented in practice. It is true that some of the provisions have been implemented in an amended form, but others have not yet come into operation. I want to refer in particular to those provisions that aim to bring about the occupation of unoccupied farms in the designated areas in question. I do so because there is a growing demand among the farmers in those areas that something be done in this regard. I can put it in a nutshell by saying that the legislation relating to the promotion of population density envisages two things. It aims at doing two things in a certain area in the Transvaal: In the first place the aim is to enable existing farmers in that area, by way of financial assistance, to make a living there and to farm profitably, as well as to enable prospective farmers to establish themselves there by providing financial assistance. The second objective of the legislation is to ensure, by way of suitable steps, the occupation and control of every farming unit in that area. In summary it could, therefore, be said that the overall objective of the legislation is to discourage depopulation and to promote population density in that area. Now the question immediately arises: Why must that specific area in the Transvaal be singled out?

Let us consider for a moment where those areas are situated. They are areas which, as I have said, are generally known as designated areas, and which border on Botswana, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Zambia. Moreover there is a common border of approximately 800 km with the friendly State Bophuthatswana. If we look at where the areas are situated and what is happening in Africa, and in particular at what has recently been happening in Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe and South West Africa, we can understand why the farmers in those areas are demanding that there be greater occupation there. At this point I want to refer to a very serious incident in one of those areas today. In fact, it happened close to where I live. The hon. the Minister of Police told me approximately half an hour ago that two elderly people, Mr. and Mrs. Steyn, were attacked and seriously maimed by terrorists this afternoon on the farm Wonderfontein, near the Botswana border. It is in those areas that the problem is being experienced which is causing the people to appeal urgently for the empty farms in those areas to be occupied as soon as possible. The South African Police followed up on that terrorist action and killed two terrorists this afternoon. A number of Russian weapons and a large quantity of ammunition were found on them. Over the past few years the Government has taken urgent steps to grant financial assistance to the farmers in those areas and has made efforts to have those areas reoccupied. By means of financial assistance a great deal has been done to assist the farmers there. We want to convey our sincere thanks this afternoon to the hon. the Minister, and in particular the hon. the Deputy Minister, as well, who showed exceptional interest and granted financial assistance to the farmers in the areas in question. In thanking the Ministry of Agriculture I must also convey the special gratitude of the farmers in those areas to the officials of the Agricultural Credit branch who are attending to the needs and requests for financial assistance in those areas with great dedication and sacrifice. When examining section 7 of the Act in question, we see that the Minister may make regulations in which he may stipulate that every farming unit of which the ownership changes or which is let, must be occupied and controlled in such a manner as he may prescribe. I have already said that the Act envisages two things, i.e. financial assistance and by taking appropriate steps, ensuring the occupation and control of every farming unit. I do not want to discuss the deficiencies of this section now. There are deficiencies, and they will have to be considered on a suitable occasion. However, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that there are growing demands from the farmers in those areas for the implementation of the provisions of section 7. They must be amended and implemented.

This brings me to the question of the unoccupied farms which I mentioned, unoccupied farms in the areas in question. It is not necessary to repeat the statistics in this regard. I can only say that as far back as two years ago it was ascertained that in the area in which the attack occurred this afternoon, fewer than 30% of the farms there are occupied and inhabited by farmers. There are many reasons and factors why this is so. Permit me to point out just a few. Many of the owners of the unoccupied farms are businessmen, principally professional people, who live in cities or towns. In addition, there are wealthy farmers, who are cattle farmers on a large scale, who live in the designated areas. One could indeed refer to them as land barons. The fact that their farms remain unoccupied causes a serious problem in the areas in question. It is the unoccupied farms which are causing the collapse of the infrastructure in those areas. One has in mind the schools, roads and post offices there. Unoccupied farms harbour vagrants and offer shelter to terrorists, as we have again experienced today. The handful of farmers there have to bear the military, civil and economic responsibilities. That is why it is becoming more and more clear to us that financial measures alone are not going to solve our problem in those areas. Hence our request that the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department take urgent steps to re-examine the Act in question. We must take the Act off the shelf for once, dust it off and re-examine it so that it will really be possible to put it into operation effectively.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member Mr. Theunissen will forgive me if I do not proceed with the points he raised, although to a certain extent they do have a bearing on what I intend to say this afternoon. The hon. member for Mooi River also started to refer at the end of his speech to input costs in farming as such and I shall certainly be taking that up.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, if he will deign to listen to me, that fine words butter no parsnips. In other words, he can talk as he will in this debate and say what wonderful people farmers are, with which I agree, and how much they have done for this country, with which I also agree, but I want to say that under this Government the number of farmers in this country has diminished to an extraordinary degree. What is more, I want to tell that hon. Minister that we are practically approaching a crisis situation in the dairy industry in South Africa. I think that to a large extent that is due to what has been done by this Government.

Let me give some practical examples of this. Some time ago the story was heard that we had a mountain of butter in South Africa. What did the Government do at that stage? It put the prices up. That was, however, only one of the actions it took. Another action it took has had a far longer lasting effect and a far worse effect on the dairy industry as a whole. What this Government did was to introduce a levy on cream producers products, a levy of up to 40%. This was a total over-reaction on the part of the Government, which created a situation which lasts to this day. It created a situation which I will spell out during the course of my speech. It is a situation in which South Africa can no longer supply dairy products in sufficient quantities to meet the needs of its population. What is more, it shows no sign of improving. It shows in fact a sign of deterioration. This has, I believe, been caused by bungling and mismanagement on the part of the Government.

Let us take, for example, the case of a small co-operative in the part of the country from which I come. I am referring to the Komga Creamery. This little creamery won prizes for producing the best butter in South Africa. Once this 40% levy on cream was introduced this creamery gradually got itself deeper and deeper into financial difficulty. It is a long story, but they were ultimately taken over by Bowker’s Park, who kept them going for a short time, and today the Komga Creamery does not do anything other than act as a collection depot for milk and supplies farmers with a few trading prerequisites. This was, I believe, the direct result of the Government’s action by way of introducing these levies on cream.

In turn the Bowker’s Park Co-operative also closed a number of its branches in the Eastern Cape, and ultimately of course, in their last year of trading, Bowker’s Park Co-operative lost in excess of R700 000, and have now been taken over by another co-operative. One wonders what will happen to all the money they have borrowed. I believe we should ask the hon. the Minister this. How much money does that cooperative owe the Land Bank and also the Dairy Control Board? What has happened in fact is that our dairy herds have disappeared and are continuing to disappear because of this particular development.

The dairy farmer has a very hard life. He works 365 days a year, and he starts work at approximately 04h30. Yet, what has happened in this country is the following, and in this respect I am referring to an article that appeared in the Financial Mail of 5 June 1981, which reads as follows—

Hard-earned foreign currency which we have to spend on importing dairy products—

That is what the General Manager of the Dairy Board says. I also have another newspaper report which appeared in the Daily Dispatch of 17 June 1981. I quote—

So it goes on. The farmer, and particularly the dairy farmer, has missed the boom in this country. It has passed him by, with the exception of the odd farmer, like the hon. the Deputy Minister, who farms with mohair. Those farmers have done very well. I refer to yet another newspaper report. This one appeared in the Sunday Times, and I quote—

Mr. Johan Willemse is quoted here as saying—

Why have these costs risen? Why have they got beyond control? I maintain that, to a large extent, it is again the result of what the Government has done in respect of the diesel price and other prices. In other words, if they do not have us by the diesel they have us by the electricity, and I should like to ask what percentage of the diesel price to the farmer is tax. What proportion of that price—which is just over 40 cents—which the farmer pays for diesel, goes straight into the coffers of the Government? We have only recently had a 15% increase in the cost of diesel to the farmers. The price has gone up by 6 cents a litre, and the dairy farmer in particular has to use this product to a tremendous extent. Not only does he use it for his ploughing and his harvesting, but the farmer who cannot obtain Escom power—and that is not very easy to get—has to use it for his generating equipment so that he can cool or refrigerate his milk. He has to use it for milking units. Furthermore, what portion of the price of maize is caused by the high cost of diesel in South Africa? We have an excess of maize in this country and we export it at a loss, and yet our dairy farmers have to pay a tremendous price for their dairy meal. I wonder whether it would not be an idea to consider supplying the agricultural industry’s needs for dairy meal at export prices. In other words, why make losses on what we export and at the same time charge our own farmers a higher price? This means that we in South Africa have to pay higher prices for our products, and this goes across all sorts of production lines: dairy products, meat products, egg and many others.

I should now also like to deal with Escom. I know that the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs stated last week that there was a move afoot to try to improve the supply of electricity to the farmer. I want to point out that, if a farmer wants to bring electricity from a point approximately five kilometres away from his farm in order to have electricity on his farm, Escom will charge him line-charges of the order of R800 per month under the present circumstances. This is simply for line-charges and does not include the cost of electricity. I believe this to be really scandalous. The farmer needs these products for feed, milking, for the transport of his products from the farm to the milk depot and he has to pay—and this is where I am getting back to the hon. member for Mooi River—GST on his purchases in terms of tractors, implements, etc., and that is after the Government has already taxed the companies that import tractors by way of import duties, etc. I therefore believe that a very large percentage of the farmers’, and particularly the dairy farmers’, input costs are costs that are created by taxation of the Government. This is where the real problem of the farmer arises. It is all very well to say that we must increase the price here and that we must increase the price there and that these increased prices to the farmer can be justified and well justified, but one must ask oneself why these input costs have gone up so much. Why is the farmer having to pay so much extra for his means of production? When one looks at this one will find that in a lot of cases the input costs have been increased by the Government. The prime reason for inflation in the 1970s was the cost of oil and this has, I believe, been escalated in South Africa by oil embargoes and by a greedy Government utilizing the opportunity to tax the public unmercifully with their fuel costs. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must pardon me for not following up on his school of thought. I have only a few minutes at my disposal and I should like to say a few words about the fur industry. The fur industry is situated in the north-western corner of the Cape Province. It comprises a very small part of the country, viz. Namaqualand, Gordonia, Prieska, a small portion of Kuruman and a section of De Aar.

That is a large surface area.

Yes, it is a large surface area, but it is also the driest part of this country. It is a part which is constantly being ravaged by droughts. Nevertheless it is the fur industry which has brought prosperity to those drought-stricken areas. It was one of the most profitable industries in that drought-stricken area. But now a disaster has struck the industry. It is, of course, an export product for most of the furs are exported. Now, with the levelling off in the European and other overseas economies, the price of furs has dropped tremendously. In contrast to the price four years ago the price has dropped by more than 50%. Quite apart from that a major drought is prevailing and in some parts it has not rained for five or six years. In most parts very little or no rain has fallen in recent years with the result that this problem not only has external but internal causes as well. As a result of the drought most of the farmers have had to diminish the numbers of their stock by 50% and more. I want to make an appeal for these farmers today. Their production resources, as with those of other farmers, have gone up by more than 50% over the past four years. Yet this industry has earned a great deal of foreign exchange for South Africa over the past few years. I do not have the time to furnish the relevant figures now, but they are known to the hon. the Minister and the department. This industry was a very great asset to South Africa. I want to say today that the hon. the Minister and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries will have to devise plans in order to aid this industry. There are no funds for this industry. I cannot put forward suggestions in the limited time at my disposal. However, we shall have to put our heads together in order to save this industry. There is simply no substitute product which is suited to that area and which can be farmed as effectively in those drought-stricken areas than the karakul sheep. We shall have to devise plans to assist those people. Those farmers are some of the toughest and proudest people one can find. The hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister know them. They are useful farmers. As I said, plans will have to be devised in order to assist those farmers.

Mr. Chairman, at this point I want to react to a few of the speeches made in this debate and which relate to my responsibility in the Ministry.

I want to commence by referring to the settlement of the young farmers and to the criticism which has been expressed as a result of the fact that the number of farmers in this country is dwindling and the fact—which many hon. members mentioned—that we are becoming obsolete in agriculture, and just touch on a few points to indicate what the Government is doing in this regard.

The hon. members for King William’s Town, Wynberg, Humansdorp, Meyerton, Pietermaritzburg South and Gordonia referred to this aspect. In my humble opinion the greatest single problem with regard to the settlement of young farmers in this country, is the fact that the market value of land has risen out of all proportion. It was stated here today that maize lands have increased disproportionately. However, this does not apply to maize lands only. Sir, you need only go to the extensive areas of this country, to the Karroo, for example, to find that the same trend which is discernible in the areas where field husbandry is practised are discernible in the extensive areas of our country as well. Consequently, in these circumstances it is extremely difficult to establish a young farmer in a normal market mechanism, unless he has a background in other branches of farming or a father who may be able to establish him in agriculture. The second very important factor is the tremendous increase in the price of livestock, large as well as small stock. One can hardly buy a decent stud bull for less than R750 or R800 nowadays. One can scarcely buy a decent sheep—when I speak of a decent sheep I refer of course to a merino or a merino type—for less than R50 a piece. This is another obstacle to the establishment of young farmers.

Not to mention angora goats.

Yes, not even to mention them.

In the third place I want to point out the following: The price of production requisites, through no fault of the Government—and I want to emphasize this—has increased out of all proportion. This is a further bottleneck as regards the establishment of young farmers in agriculture.

In the fourth place, there is the following: In the past it was customary for young men to start off by initially hiring land in order to build up capital, until such time as sufficient capital had been saved to acquire their own land. However, the rentals on land, too, have now risen disproportionately. This, of course, aggravates the matter even further.

Before dealing with certain Government activities, I should like to take this opportunity to appeal to fathers to hand over land to their sons more quickly and in good time, in order to instil in these young men the confidence to enter agriculture. However, I want to add that I believe it is necessary for us to examine bottlenecks which exist with regard to hereditary succession. We shall have to examine this matter and the State will have to take certain steps in order to make it easier for fathers to hand over land to young men in good time.

As far as efforts on the part of the State are concerned, it is, of course, true that, by means of agricultural credit, the financing of the purchase of land, livestock and production requisites is being carried out on a continuous basis. However, it is unfortunately true that due to financial discipline which was announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance, we had to suspend the scheme for the purchase of land at the end of July this year. However, I want to add here and now that as we evaluate the new scheme which was envisaged by way of the recent amendment of the Agricultural Credit Act, and as we see the extent to which moneys accrue, we shall be able to determine our own priorities. It may be possible—in fact I foresee this—to have a constant supply of funds for the purchase of land. Once again, however, in the present circumstances and at the existing prices of land, it is impossible to make any headway at all unless that young farmer can finance himself to a considerable extent.

I now come to the second aspect of State action, which concerns the allocation of land which becomes available for agriculture. I want to state today that we on the Government side shall have to ensure that land which has passed into White ownership, land in dam basins and all other land which becomes available for agriculture, becomes alienated permanently far more rapidly, and that we shall have to adopt the custom of allocating such land at agricultural value. Once again this must be allocated principally to younger men.

I must point out that the policy of the Agricultural Credit Board is very clearly outlined, viz. that in the allocation of this land the young people must be given absolute preference, all the other factors being equal.

The hon. member for Gordonia referred to the aspect of irrigation land as well. One can establish a young farmer in the very cheapest way on irrigation land today. That is why it is my humble standpoint—I think it is shared by the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs—that we shall in future have to adopt the policy of allocating irrigation plots to prospective young farmers at agricultural value to an increasing extent. I think this is extremely important. We do in fact have a success story at the Ramah Canal below the P. K. le Roux Dam, where the Agricultural Credit Board has established eight farmers. I think it would be worthwhile for people in that vicinity to go and have a look, for it is really a success story.

In my humble opinion the Government will also have to ensure that land which has come available, but which cannot be allocated immediately—in other words, land which cannot be permanently disposed of—and which has to be leased on a temporary basis, is issued to prospective young farmers at agricultural value. This is an action we are engaged in at present. I do not want to elaborate on this matter, but I believe it is of cardinal importance for us to lease temporarily State land to young farmers at agricultural value, land which will eventually have to be alienated. In this way we can enable them to build up capital so that they are eventually able to acquire their own land.

Perhaps the statement I am about to make as regards the establishment of young farmers is highly contentious, but it really links up with what the hon. member Dr. Odendaal said. I am referring to the policy we are pursuing in respect of part-time farmers. I maintain—and I also said this in the debate on the amendment of the Agricultural Credit Act—that if we want to establish young farmers, i.e. men who are really serious in their intention to enter the industry, we must afford them the opportunity of obtaining finance from the State while they are still employed elsewhere.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. the Deputy Minister’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon. the Deputy Minister an opportunity to continue.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Chief Whip.

“Consequently I believe that we shall have to revise the policy pertaining to part-time farmers. Due to the problem of the tremendous discrepancy between agricultural and market value in particular, I believe we shall have to allow a person to accept part-time work in order to obtain additional income, for although he acquires an uneconomic unit by means of Government aid, this will eventually enable him to obtain an economic unit. Consequently I believe that we shall have to reconsider our approach as regards these part-time farmers.

Some of the hon. members, among others the hon. member for King William’s Town and the hon. member for Gordonia, referred to the drought conditions and the assistance which was being granted in that respect. I want to deal with this matter briefly, for I believe we are all grateful that widespread rains have fallen in our country, although we think with compassion of the few districts which have unfortunately been unable to share in this great relief. At one stage 112 districts were on the pasturage emergency list, and except for one period in our history, this is the highest number of districts ever listed. The tragedy of this is that the droughts prevailed in the high rainfall areas as well, for example in Natal and the Eastern Cape. At the moment 25 districts are still on the pasturage emergency list, and I believe that after winter, i.e. during October and November, no more than eight or nine districts will continue to be listed. We are very grateful for that.

I just want to refer briefly to the assistance already been granted in this regard. Loans of almost R14 million have been granted, while approximately R8 million was appropriated for a rebate on the transport of fodder. Approximately R20 million was paid out in subsidies up to the end of August, and hon. members will concede that this is a considerable amount. As far as the loans of approximately R14 million are concerned, I know that hon. members will tell me at once that it will be impossible for farmers to repay that amount within a year. I agree with them in that respect. As soon as the drought has eventually broken, in the disaster areas in particular, we shall reconsider the question of the repayment of loans. Hon. members may rest assured that we shall give sympathetic consideration to this question and that we shall not call up loans immediately.

I do not want to deal with the various phases of aid. I take cognizance of what the hon. member for King William’s Town said as regards the implementation of these phases, for I think this is extremely important, and what I am about to say may satisfy the hon. member. The phases have been implemented from time to time and here I should like to thank the Jacobs Committee for the assistance they have rendered in this regard.

This brings me to the question of future droughts. The very moment I arrived in this Ministry it was a matter of concern to me that we only take ad hoc measures whenever there is a drought in this country. In other words, there is no planned action. I want to concede this at once, for I think one must admit to one’s mistakes. There has never been any planned action. Consequently the then hon. Minister of Agriculture instructed me to look into long-term plans for dealing with droughts. I am grateful to be able to say today that we have already made a great deal of progress in this regard. To tell the truth, we have made so much progress that the department and the S.A. Agricultural Union have reached consensus on a plan. All we have to do now is to conduct final discussions with all the interested parties. Then at some stage—and it will be shortly—I shall submit the whole plan to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture for submission to the Cabinet. The purpose of the plan is to spell out clearly what we in this country are going to do in times of future droughts. I think this is very important. Hon. members will know that the Soil Conservation Act is one of the cornerstones on which agriculture in South Africa is established and it has been a cause for concern to me over the years that by way of drought relief we may have been violating the very principles of the Soil Conservation Act. In the circumstances, representatives of our department, as well as representatives of the Agricultural Union, reached complete unanimity about the fact that the assistance must in future be geared not so much to the sheep, but rather to the soil. The soil must be priority number one as regards the evaluation of assistance in future. I can inform hon. members that total unanimity has been achieved in this respect thus far. This will form the basis for future assistance in times of drought. I do not want to say any more about long-term planning for droughts. However, hon. members may rest assured that this plan entailed a tremendous amount of work and that once we have obtained the permission of the Cabinet, we shall be able to announce the plan shortly.

The hon. member for Theunissen discussed the designated areas. I should like to thank him most sincerely for the gratitude expressed by him to the department and its officials. He was correct in saying that a tremendous amount of work was done by the department in the course of this action. I just want to quote a few figures briefly to indicate what financial assistance has been granted in the various areas. I can proudly say that we have succeeded in establishing no fewer than 300 people there permanently. The total sum spent amounts to R35 716 000, and assistance has been granted to 456 applicants. I think this is a success story, from beginning to end. According to the hon. member, the State should first attempt to make the existing border farmers financially viable, and we have succeeded in doing so. Secondly, people should be settled there and I am pleased to be able to say that a total of 86 people have newly established themselves there. I think this is a tremendous achievement. There were also share-croppers, lessees of land and people who owned uneconomic farms. I maintain that these are all people whom one can establish there permanently by assisting them with a view to the future.

The hon. member also discussed the infrastructure, and in this respect I agree with him wholeheartedly. On the one hand, one establishes people in an area where there is already a proper infrastructure, for example roads, schools, Government services, a post office, a magistrate’s court, medical services, etc. On the other hand, however, an infrastructure arises where there are enough people. One could therefore say: “It cuts both ways.” That is why I say that our top priority must be to try to get people there. In an extensive area such as that it is very difficult to achieve population density, unless one can encourage irrigation farming. I am therefore grateful that the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs has decided to supply electricity to those areas, for once there is electricity in those areas one can establish irrigation farming very fruitfully along the Limpopo and all its tributaries, again with the purpose of achieving greater population density. The other problem which the hon. member outlined—and the hon. member knows those areas like the back of his hand—is section 7 of the legislation relating to population density. I have been severely criticized in respect of certain statements I made in this respect, but I want to tell the hon. member today that if we do not give urgent attention to the implementation of section 7 of the legislation, we shall really achieve nothing with our other efforts. That is why I must agree with the hon. member that as regards the occupation of farms—and there are numerous unoccupied farms, although I do not want to mention the figures now—we shall have to take certain steps to ensure that the farmers establish themselves there permanently, or that the farms owned by White farmers are occupied by people who have been approved by the hon. the Minister, as the Act stipulates. Part-time, farmers or weekend farmers as I sometimes call them, are all very well, as long as they produce, but when it concerns our border areas it is in the national interest for us to ensure that those farms are occupied by people who have been approved and who can ensure that the security risk from that area is not very great.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the new hon. Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on the significant policy speech he made. I also wish to thank the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries for the thorough way in which he replied to questions. We found these two speeches to be very reassuring, and we are convinced that with these two men at the helm, agriculture in South Africa will go far. They are two well-trained farmers. Therefore they have practical experience and know precisely what the farmer in South Africa needs. I also wish to convey my thanks to Mr. Hendrik Schoeman, who for many years handled this portfolio so well. His name will go down in history as one of the Ministers of Agriculture who achieved great success. Nor do we doubt that the new Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and his Deputy Minister will follow faithfully in the footsteps of Hendrik Schoeman. We have great confidence in the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister. We found their speeches to be very significant indications of future policy.

Today there are many Government departments which are very important to South Africa. Each in its field means a great deal, but the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is deeply-rooted in the entire State structure. So deeply-rooted is it that the tree which grows from those roots, spreads its branches over the whole of South Africa. Agriculture is a tall tree, with branches spreading over the whole Republic, over the whole of Southern Africa. That is why the task of the farmer in South Africa is of exceptional importance. Any army can be as good as can be, but if there is not enough food, you have problems. Any undertaking can be as good as possible, but if there is famine and misery of that kind, all kinds of things crop up, and then you have problems. The same applies in any branch of life. An empty stomach weakens the body, and then the brain becomes susceptible to all kinds of ideas, sometimes to ideas which are unhealthy, and sometimes to ideas which could cause problems for the country.

That tree also spreads its branches over the independent States, far beyond the boundaries of the Republic. Food has become a bargaining force in today’s power struggle. Yet it is strange, Sir, that wherever the White farmers have left, problems have arisen in Africa. This is just the way things are. Yet South Africa is not withholding its technical knowledge, but is doing a great deal to give guidance and furnish information. For example if people ask Onderstepoort for assistance, it does not spare itself in furnishing the necessary information. That is why the farmer today is the producer of green, red, white and brown gold in South Africa. That is why it would be good to have sound co-operation between the farmer and the consumer today.

It is very important for direct channels of communication to be created between the farmer and the consumer, so that the consumer will be well-informed, for example of the reasons why prices sometimes rise. Times without number I have found that when rising prices are being discussed, the farmer gets the blame. When prices indicated on the labels on canned products go up and people complain to the manager, one always finds that it is the non-White employee who affixes those price labels to the cans, who gets the blame for having incorrectly labelled that product. It is always the one far away at the end of the line who gets the blame—but only after the farmers themselves have been blamed.

To begin a farming operation these days is no easy task, because the initial capital investment is tremendous. With certain kinds of farming practices, it may take years before they show a profit. Conditions in our country are not the same everywhere, and therefore it is not always possible for the farmer to begin a specific kind of farming enterprise in any area in South Africa, even though he has a special preference for it.

The concessions to farmers in the border areas are very important and I am very grateful for the adequate reply given in this connection today by the hon. the Deputy Minister, and also for the pleas in this regard made by previous speakers. It is imperative that the vacant farms should be occupied. There can be no misunderstanding about this. We want to ask the hon. the Minister very respectfully to submit this matter to the Cabinet and to establish whether it is not possible to find money to render the necessary assistance to those farmers as soon as possible. It is essential.

We are also grateful that the hon. the Minister was able to announce that a testing agent has now been found for heart-water, a killer disease in animals, which enables a farmer to determine whether a certain animal is immune to it or not. This is just another milestone in the history of our research. We are very grateful to the bodies which have placed this agent at our disposal. We cannot but convey our thanks to Onderstepoort for the valuable service which it has been rendering over the years. I want to include the various pharmaceutical companies in South Africa and abroad which have over the years been rendering excellent services and which have placed efficacious remedies such as those registered at the time under Act No. 36 of 1947, as amended from time to time, on the market. Consequently a farmer has the certain knowledge today that when he purchases a remedy, it has indeed been registered and is not merely a quack remedy.

I should like to convey my gratitude and appreciation to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for the watchful eye which it keeps over farmers, and also for having ensured that the farmers receive the best products. Then, too, I should like to convey my thanks to the co-operative movement for what it has achieved in South Africa, as well as to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, which over the years has done so much for the farmers. We know that the hon. the Minister is at present planning and working on legislation, and we wish to thank the Government for what it is doing to stimulate the co-operative movement.

In South Africa there was a time when our farmers were confused. This was several decades ago. Sometimes they did not know to whom they should take their products. There were no storage facilities. For example there were no adequate silo facilities. No one wanted to initiate such a large undertaking. Rotting grain was a common occurrence. Extension services were almost non-existent, and the co-operative societies, with the help of their headquarters, sprang to work and became the purveyors of the proper means to counteract rotting and contamination by insects. Today we are therefore able to store grain for years. All these things were made possible because the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries rendered excellent services, not only to the farmers, but also to the consumers in South Africa.

That is why the consumer and the farmer go hand-in-hand today, and it is important that the one should know more about the other. Our co-operative organizations in South Africa are deeply-rooted in the soil of this country, and we hope and trust that this will continue to be the case in future. The young farmer today is the biggest investment our country can have for the future. That is why we are grateful for the good training which is being provided at universities, agricultural colleges and experimental farms. Farming today is a skilled undertaking. It is no longer simply a case of a person who sows and hopes he is going to reap. Today a farmer must be a good bookkeeper, as the former hon. Minister once said. He must also have a good working knowledge of economy, agricultural machinery, stock diseases, plant diseases, marketing, of the soil and of nature itself. On top of that he must also be a good weather forecaster, and must of course be married to the right woman. [Interjections.]

I have great faith in agriculture in South Africa. It is my wish that agriculture in South Africa may go from strength to strength.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Nigel and other hon. members said in conveying a word of gratitude and appreciation to the former hon. Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the present hon. Minister of Transport Affairs. He indeed contributed his share during the years in which he led us in the field of agriculture! We thank him most sincerely. Similarly I should like to associate myself with hon. members on this side of the House, as well as other hon. members, who conveyed their best wishes to the present hon. Minister and to the hon. the Deputy Minister. They are in fact contributing their share just as diligently to keep the wheels of this wonderful industry, agriculture, rolling. I wish them, too, everything of the best and I also express my appreciation for what they have done to date.

I want to exchange some views this evening on one of the finest commodities in the entire agricultural set-up in South Africa, viz. tobacco and its cultivation. [Interjections.] With a glass of wine and the best of our national dishes it enriches and makes pleasant the life of many a connoisseur. The choice of the dish, the wine and the cigar is a matter of free will and of personal choice. This freedom of choice must be left to the discretion of the consumer. He must be allowed to enjoy his pleasures with responsibility. I have said that the tobacco industry is one of the finest in the entire agricultural set-up.

I wish hon. members could share my pleasure in learning about this entire industry. From the choice of the variety, with its origin in one of the smallest seeds which it is possible to sow, through the seedling stage up to that of full maturity on the land; from a splendid plant with its broad, heavy leaves, to the gold in the drying-oven or drier; through the competent hands of the sorters to the baling press and ultimately to where it is opened up in the sales hall, where the farmer waits in anticipation, with a touch of fear, in anticipation of the valuation, this is an exciting process from beginning to end. The product, now already out of the farmer’s hands, and passed on to the manufacturer, where having passed through a wonderworld of macro- and micro-technology the golden fleece eventually ends up as a neat packet of cigarettes on the dealer’s shelf, and he, with a smile, places the packet in the outstretched hand of the little boy who has come to fetch his father’s supply, is and remains a wonderful process. I have said that this is a world of wonder, from the seed to the cigarette, from the seedling to the pipe and from the plant to the bench. One can wax lyrical when watching the painstaking hand of the sower, the sensitive finger on the leaf, the expert eye which seeks quality, the hand which evaluates as against the farmer’s pocket, the exact cutting to the client’s taste, the test-tube in the hand of the chemist, and the masterpiece with a long draw.

I have said that one can wax lyrical about the tobacco industry, but on the other hand—and this is equally important and just as true—few industries are as brittle and exposed as this same industry; the unpredictability of the elements; the dictates of fashion; the mendicant attitude of many who want their share of the pie. In real terms, 12% of the total turnover of the industry eventually ends up in the hands of the farmer, and 20% in the pocket of the Exchequer. Since 1910 the import tariff has remained unchanged, when it was 77c per kilogram as opposed to the present plus minus 400c per kilogram. This industry receives no import protection, but fights foreign surpluses without any protection. Domestic surpluses have almost been eliminated, as a result of farmers co-operating with the quota system which has been adopted. In this regard too he has contributed his share.

Now I should like to put a few facts to the hon. the Minister and to hon. members. The tobacco industry is one of the biggest foreign exchange earners in the agricultural industry, bigger even than the wine industry. The Exchequer leans heavily on the excise duty imposed on this industry. It amounted to approximately R300 million in 1980 and in the present tax year it will be approximately R500 million. 35% of all the border farmers to whom my hon. colleague referred, are tobacco farmers. Since tobacco is their only profitable industry, and is for the most part grown on small farms, they are burdened by the pressure of manufacturers’ and other demands. As an intensive industry, it is one of the major providers of employment in the agricultural industry. My own co-operative, for example, has 4 000 members of whom only 1 200 to 1 400 are active. The rest are no longer active in the industry. This is a further demonstration of the heavy burden of pressure on these people.

In conclusion, a very friendly request to the hon. the Minister, and I wish him strength with regard to the requests I put to him. I want to ask the hon. the Minister please to assist us to remain in the market. Help us to check the over-emphasis on the anti-smoking campaign. Protect us by introducing import control measures. Please adjust the unchanged import duty of 77c per kilogram since 1910 to a realistic present-day valuation. Protect us against stringent demands made by the manufacturers, for example with regard to the permissible chlorine and tar content in the tobacco.

I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that the industry will play its part. The hon. the Minister demonstrated that he wishes to play his part when, together with the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, Forestry and Environmental Conservation, he met us in Pretoria on 9 March, after the election had already been announced, and that is why even now we want to thank the hon. the Minister in advance for the assurance, which we are certain of, that he will play his part in keeping this finest of all the industries in the agricultural sector not merely on its legs, but also in business.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to a few members at this stage, beginning with the hon. member for Wynberg.

The hon. member for Wynberg made a great fuss here about the question of food prices. He also said that control boards were not preventing wild price increases. In the first place, I want to ask the hon. member a very reasonable question. Does he believe that agriculture may claim the same increase as is reflected in the consumer price index? To put it very simply: Is the hon. member satisfied—this is not intended to catch him out; it is quite a reasonable question—that if the consumer price index rose by say 15%, and food prices rose by the same percentage, this would be a normal and a reasonable position?

I would not necessarily agree with that.

The hon. member would not necessarily agree with that.

It depends on circumstances such as over-production and many other factors.

No, I am talking only about normal circumstances. There are no abnormal surpluses, there are no shortages. Would the hon. member agree that in such a normal situation, food prices could rise as much as the prices of other consumer goods?

One must also ask whether this is based on a real situation where a … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. member is in trouble, because he made a great fuss here about food prices that were getting out of hand. However, the hon. member’s problem is that he does not want the farmer to have the same price increases as he is willing to allow the industrialist and the private sector. [Interjections.] I want to take up the hon. member on that point as well.

That is a ridiculous statement.

Now the hon. member says it is ridiculous, but I want to say this to the hon. member. The hon. member and his party—not all of them—are not willing to grant the farmers the same prosperity as they do the other sectors of our national economy. The hon. member spoke about wild price increases and prices that were getting out of hand. The hon. member also mentioned the increases which occurred in 1979, 1980 and 1981. Let us take a look at the consumer price index. If we take 1975 as a base of 100, we see that by 1979, the consumer price index had risen to 155,3. Over the same number of years between 1975 and 1979, food prices rose only to 154,7. In other words, since 1975, the rise in food prices had been less than the rise in the consumer price index. Now we see that in 1979, food was still lagging behind, as it had done ever since 1975. Let us see now what happened in 1979-’80.

That simply proves that the control boards did not do their work properly.

In 1979-’80, the rise in food prices and the rise in the consumer price index were the same. They both stood at 165. In 1980, food prices rose more sharply than the consumer price index. However, I told the hon. member in a previous debate and in another previous debate and during the previous session that the rise in the food price index was due to the great effect of the rise in the price of beef. When one looks at the index, one sees that since 1975, beef prices had been lagging a long way behind other food prices.

That is a fact.

The hon. member for Mooi River agrees with me. He is a sensible man. He knows the industry. He is a working farmer. [Interjections.] What happened then? Then the North-Western Transvaal and the Northern Transvaal were depopulated, just because meat prices had fallen behind.

In other words, your policy failed … [Interjections.]

I shall come to the policy shortly. Meanwhile, the hon. member for Wynberg can relax for a while. I shall come to the policy shortly, to his policy as well.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I cannot allow a dialogue. The hon. the Minister must please proceed with his speech.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Wynberg says our policy has failed. So the hon. member is now saying that the Government and the Meat Board did not allow meat prices to rise high enough. A floor price is not a support price. It is simply a level which has to prevent the price from dropping below it. However, the hon. member now says that our policy did not work. We should have raised the floor price and kept the prices at an artificially high level through control. That is what he said. Earlier on in his speech, however, he said that we should now apply less control. I should now like to put the matter in perspective to the hon. member. He can watch the index prices from next month. Then he will see that beef prices will no longer rise so sharply, for then the period of a year will have expired. These index prices are calculated from a specific month of the year to the corresponding month the following year. He will then see that the figures no longer seem so high, and that there is no longer such a fuss being made about food prices. However, as a result of the free market mechanism, red meat has made up the ground it lost over a period of four or five years. The system for the sale of beef is an auction price on the hook and the price is determined by supply and demand.

You restrict supply, though.

If the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South wishes to make that allegation, he must make it and substantiate it before the commission of inquiry. I say to the hon. member for Wynberg that as a result of backlogs built up in the past, food prices have now reached a level which is not out of proportion to the realities of the situation.

The hon. member also asked what our agricultural policy in respect of food was. But I said in my speech that our policy was in the first place that we should be self-sufficient. We want the highest degree of stability in the agricultural industry by eliminating excessive fluctuations in food prices. So we want to bring about a stable supply of food in the country. That is what our policy is aimed at.

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

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member made a long speech and I did not interrupt him. He says the drop in the number of farmers is the reason why our agricultural policy has failed. But, does the hon. member not know that this is a worldwide phenomenon? The fact of the matter is that as a country develops, as it becomes more industrialized, the farmers grow fewer in number. The hon. member has only to look at the history of the development of all the countries in the world. He will see that in the countries of the First World there is usually a very low percentage of farmers, compared with the countries in the Third World, where the percentage of farmers is much higher. I want to tell the hon. member that I have unequivocally expressed myself in favour of the retention of the small farmers in the country and I shall introduce measures in the future to achieve this objective and to keep the maximum number of farmers on the land and to ensure that they make a decent living. The whole financing policy of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure is aimed at helping the smaller farmer, and the financing policy of the Land Bank is aimed principally at helping the farmer in category 2. Therefore I tell the hon. member clearly and unequivocally that our policy is aimed at keeping on the land the maximum number of farmers who can make a decent living there.

The hon. member for Barberton has replied effectively to the hon. member for Wynberg as far as the question of food prices is concerned. The hon. member for Wynberg performed an egg-dance and said that the control boards had a suspicious look about them and that they should be investigated by independent people. But does the hon. member not know that there was a commission of inquiry on which hon. members of all parties in this House served? About three years ago, this commission brought out a unanimous report.

Tell me about it.

That commission conducted investigations for about three years and visited several overseas countries. The hon. the Deputy Minister and I, as well as hon. members of the Opposition, served on this commission, and the finding was that the control board system in South Africa was among the best in the world. Our control board system is in the interests of the producer as well as the consumer.

What do you say now, Philip?

However, I want to tell the hon. member that there are many people in the country who do not like control boards, because their introduction had an inhibiting effect on these people. These are people who made their money out of the farmers and the consumers of this country. One of the objectives of the control system is to keep the difference between the producer and consumer prices as small as possible.

Have you succeeded in doing so?

I would be the last to claim that the control board system in this country is absolutely, 100% perfect. In fact, I do not suppose that a perfect system exists anywhere in the world. I can give the hon. member the assurance that these boards do very good work, and have brought about great stability, not only for the producer, but for the consumer as well.

However, the hon. member now says that the control boards should exercise less control …

And …?

The hon. member also said they should be more marketing-orientated. Having said that, however, he made a serious plea for greater control over the proposed cartel for maize products. First he advocated less control, but when he came to the cartel, he asked for more control and wanted to know what I was going to do about it. Let me tell the hon. member the truth about this maize story. When I was negotiating with the Maize Board about this year’s maize price, I told them that I expected them to keep a close watch on the retail price of mealie-meal, and as soon as it became apparent to them that there were people who were abusing the price increase and trying to exploit the public, they should immediately report this to me, and then we would have to consider reintroducing price control. This is recorded in the documents of the Maize Board.

When the Press reports appeared, I made inquiries. However, no one admitted that the cartel existed. We were told that discussions were being held, etc. I told a certain newspaper that if such a cartel were formed, and the public were exploited, I would not hesitate to act and perhaps to introduce price control. Then we also have the Competition Board, to which the matter can also be referred. However, I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that if it is necessary as a result of the forming of cartels, I shall not hesitate for a moment to introduce retail price control over mealie-meal and its by-products. The necessary instruments are there and we are watching the situation.

I want to thank the hon. member for Barberton for his good wishes to me. I greatly appreciate it, coming from him as the chairman of the agricultural group of this side of the House. I also trust that we shall co-operate just as cordially in the future as we have up to now.

The hon. member mentioned the fragmentation of manpower in the field of research. He said that the inquiry into the question of manpower in the department, extension services, etc., should be expedited. I can assure the hon. member that it will be laid down in the terms of reference I give to the committee that they have to submit a preliminary report to me within six months with regard to the most urgent problem areas. I want to congratulate the hon. member on his effective reply to the question put by the hon. member for Wynberg about the rise in food prices.

This brings me to the hon. member for Gordonia, who has just made his maiden speech. I agree with him that we must abolish dog-tax. The hon. member wants the new land along the Orange River to be developed. Of course, this is a matter which to a large extent falls under the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, Forestry and Environmental Conservation, but we shall certainly investigate it. My colleague is in the House and I am sure he has taken cognizance of what the hon. member said in his maiden speech.

†This brings me to the hon. member for Mooi River. I must say that after the negative approach of the PFP in regard to the control board scheme, it was really heartening to hear of the hon. member for Mooi River’s support for the Marketing Act and for the whole system of control boards.

He is a member of a control board.

I agree with him and want to congratulate him on that point.

The hon. member for Mooi River also mentioned the tendency of wool farmers to concentrate more on meat production than on wool farming. I agree with the hon. member that favourable short-term price trends should not persuade the farmers to switch from one branch of farming to another without taking other factors into account as well. That is merely short-term planning and certainly not the right thing to do.

*The hon. member for Ventersdorp spoke about research. He mentioned the need for an inquiry into research, extension services and the manpower position in the department. He touched on a very important point when he said that the tendency existed today to follow a one-sided approach by wanting to examine only a specific industry or to concentrate research only on a specific industry and not on agriculture as a whole. Therefore I want to sound a serious warning tonight. We have 21 control boards, and there are probably more agricultural industries in the country. If each of them wanted to do research and provide extension services, the manpower in this country would be fragmented to such an extent that no one would have sufficient facilities available to him anywhere. Then research in South Africa would be ruined and this country would pay such a heavy price that it could not easily recover. The hon. member mentioned the very important point that one can never look at agricultural research in isolation. One has to look at the whole spectrum if one wants to do meaningful research and to draw up meaningful plans. It cannot be done in isolation.

The hon. member asked: “What about the future financing of agricultural research and extension services in South Africa?” He also asked whether greater use could not be made of levy funds to finance research, extension services and other activities. I think this is a matter which the committee of inquiry should consider very seriously, to see whether there is not an additional source which can be utilized for research and in the interests of agriculture.

The hon. member for Queenstown made his maiden speech, and I want to congratulate him very sincerely. I am glad that three hon. members made their maiden speeches during the discussion of my Vote. The hon. member for Queenstown discussed the question of hereditary succession in agriculture, and he pointed out the problems which were arising in that connection. I take cognizance of what the hon. member said, and I shall probably bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance sooner or later.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South asked for the appointment of a commission of inquiry into the control boards, consisting of independent persons. I have already replied to that question and I cannot accede to that. With regard to the other statement which the hon. member made, namely that young people should enter the agricultural industry, I have no quarrel with him.

The hon. member for Heidelberg made a very interesting speech today.

Meyerton.

I am sorry, the hon. member for Meyerton. It was force of habit that made me say “Heidelberg”.

The hon. member for Meyerton analysed the ages of farmers, and from that it was apparent that our farmers were becoming older. This gives one cause for concern, and I think the message which the hon. member for Meyerton brought us was that we would have to see to it that more young people were enabled to enter the agricultural industry.

The hon. member for Humansdorp also made his maiden speech, and I wish to congratulate him on it. I also want to thank him for his kind words of thanks to the Government for the assistance after the flood damage in that area. Allow me also to take this opportunity tonight of thanking the hon. the Prime Minister and my colleagues in the Cabinet, and especially the hon. the Minister of Finance, for their generous assistance to the farmers of South Africa after the flood disaster.

The hon. member for Humansdorp also pleaded the cause of young farmers who wanted to enter the industry. He said he did not feel happy about the attacks that were being made on the existing marketing set-up in South Africa. As the hon. member probably knows, I am personally prepared to stand or fall by the Marketing Act as we know it.

†I now come to the hon. member for Albany. I must say, I could not believe that the hon. member is a member of the PFP. I would rather have thought that he was a member of the NRP or maybe the NP, because he made a very responsible speech as far as Black labour is concerned. I want to congratulate the hon. member on the responsible stand he took as far as that is concerned. The hon. member made the point that, if minimum wage levels were forced, mechanization would take place. That is a fact. I cannot disagree with him on that. He also said that, as far as fringe benefits or payments in kind were concerned, the private sector are usually praised when it grants these benefits. He also stressed the importance of payments in kind and of other fringe benefits, such as medical assistance. I want to commend him on his positive approach. He also remarked, quite rightly, that the relevant figures did not include housing. He also made the point that many Africans elsewhere in Africa would jump at the chance of getting a job in the Eastern Free State. I really want to congratulate him on his speech. I think he must have a chat with the hon. member for Wynberg. Maybe the hon. member for Wynberg will benefit much from such a discussion. It was very clear to me that the hon. member for Albany is a real farmer. He understands the problems of the farmer. I want to congratulate him once more.

*The hon. member for Middelburg made the very important point, in respect of the training of labour, that we should increase productivity in agriculture. He also advocated a training centre for farm labourers in the Eastern Transvaal. I can only tell him that the S.A. Agricultural Union is at the moment examining the whole question of expanding training centres over a wider front. I am also having discussions with the S.A. Agricultural Union about this whole matter. We shall bear the hon. member’s request in mind, but I cannot promise him anything at this stage.

When the hon. member Dr. Odendaal spoke, I could hear that he was a man who knew what he was talking about. I am told that his doctoral thesis dealt with economic farming units. He gave us a very interesting dissersation and laid particular emphasis on the fact that if the optimum size it exceeded, production per unit goes down. He also pointed out the importance of security factors, of the infrastructure and of population relationships, etc. He also said that we should not further reduce the number of farmers by mechanization and that we should consolidate uneconomic units. He added that co-operative factors should be utilized to keep the smaller farmer going. I want to thank the hon. member sincerely for a very positive contribution.

It is a pity, though, that he is a Free Stater. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister has already replied to the hon. member for King William’s Town. Therefore I shall not deal with the points he made.

Then I come to the hon. member for De Kuilen. He also made the point that farm labourers should be better trained so that they may also make a better contribution. He also said that farmers in agriculture needed cheap operating capital. Then he made the further point that we could tremendously increase production if we could reduce pests, plagues and diseases and could increase the percentage of calves and lambs. He also referred to direct and indirect damage. Then he made the point that South Africa could fall behind in the field of veterinary surgeons. The committee I have announced can investigate this whole matter in depth.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has also replied to the requests made by the hon. member Mr. Theunissen. Therefore I shall not say any more about his representations. I just want to take this opportunity of expressing my sympathy with the farming community in that area in connection with the attack that was made on them.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central got very worked up. I do not know why the hon. member can get so inflammatory. [Interjections.] What really surprised me … [Interjections.]

I think we should get him to address one of our political rallies.

The hon. the Minister of State Administration is quite right. If the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central goes on in this vein, we shall have to get him to address one of our rallies. [Interjections.] If the hon. member had addressed a rally in my constituency during the election, my majority would have gone up by at least 2 000 votes. [Interjections.]

The hon. member launched an attack on me here tonight. He alleged that the price of diesel was going up and that the farmers had to pay a high tax on that diesel. He also raised a dust about the price of electricity. However, if I am not mistaken, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is now the official Opposition’s chief spokesman on energy policy and so on.

Yes, that is right. [Interjections.]

Then surely the hon. member should have raised those matters in a debate with the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. Surely he had ample opportunity to raise that matter with the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs.

But I want you to talk to him as well. I have done so.

No, wait a minute. The hon. member should know that it is the normal procedure in this House, when an hon. member intends to attack another hon. member or his policy, for him to inform that hon. member of this, so that he may be present in this House. I really take it amiss of the hon. member that he did not inform the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. He really should have let the hon. the Minister know, so that he could have been here to defend himself tonight. The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and his department were nevertheless kind enough to furnish me with the necessary information.

The hon. member alleges that we have imposed a heavy tax on the diesel used by the farmers. Is that correct?

Yes, I said so.

According to the hon. member farmers pay a heavy tax on their diesel fuel. That is not true.

Let us have the figures.

That is not true.

Well, let us have the figures.

I shall give you the figures.

Oh, goodness gracious me.

The farmer pays a duty of 0,18 cents per litre on diesel fuel. That is the duty paid by the farmer on diesel used for production purposes. The full duty payable on diesel used for non-farming purposes is 10,31 cents per litre.

*The farmer pays 0,18 cents per litre, while the full duty is 10,34 cents a litre. That is quite a big difference.

Well, give us the rest of the figures as well.

No, wait a minute. It is quite a big difference. This is the duty which the farmer pays.

The hon. member spoke about tax.

Yes, but his windmills are not diesel-fueled. [Interjections.]

Now I want to ask the hon. member a further question. Surely the diesel which he uses in his tractor for ploughing and for his other farming activities is diesel on which he does not pay general sales tax. Surely that diesel is exempt from general sales tax.

His windmill uses wind, not diesel. [Interjections.]

I do not know what the tax on wind is. On diesel, however, he does not pay general sales tax. On the Witwatersrand, for example, 2,4 cents a litre is paid by way of general sales tax on diesel used for non-farming purposes. On diesel used for fanning purposes, however, no general sales tax is paid. The farmer has an exemption number. He obtains that diesel from his co-operative and he pays no general sales tax on it. So far, therefore, the hon. member’s “heavy tax” is only 0,183 cents a litre. However, we must go a little further.

Then there is also an equalization levy. That equalization levy is imposed on all fuel in the country, not as a tax, but to equalize the difference in the purchase price of the raw material. It is not a tax. It is part of the purchase price. The Equalization Fund is administered by the State. The money for the Equalization Fund is kept in a pool and used when the State has to purchase fuel at higher prices. The price is then equalized, so that we do not have to pay a different diesel price every day. However, there is not a single cent of tax in the Equalization Fund. It is only the hon. member and members of the HNP who said during the election campaign that this was a tax.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, in terms of this fund he has just mentioned, what percentage of the price the farmer pays for diesel goes into that fund.

I have already made it very clear to the hon. member. That fund is used for financing the purchase of crude oil. There is no difference. After all, we do not buy a litre of oil for the farmer and a litre of oil for a factory. The oil arrives here in a big tank and then goes to the refinery. The point is actually that the fanner pays between 44 cents and 45 cents a litre for his diesel, while the pump price is 61 cents a litre. That is because the farmer does not pay the excise duty of 10,341 cents a litre.

Give us a breakdown of the 45 cents.

But now the hon. member alleges that the increase in the price of diesel is overtaxing the farmer.

Give us a breakdown.

Wait a minute. The hon. member alleged that it was tax that was pushing up the price so much.

Yes, it is.

But the hon. member is talking absolute rubbish now, and he knows that. The hon. member has put his foot in it.

I smell it!

The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs says he smells it. However, let us just ge the facts straight. After all, the hon. member knows that the recent increase in the price of diesel was the result of the change in the exchange rate, in the freight, etc. It had nothing to do with taxation.

The hon. member also complained about Escom power costs, the high connection fees, the capital costs involved, etc. I really want to tell the hon. member that he should rather debate this matter of Escom power and the connection of electricity with the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. As the hon. member knows, the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs has already announced relief measures in this House, measures of which the hon. member, as the official Opposition’s chief spokesman on energy affairs, must surely be informed.

He said it was under discussion.

The hon. member Mr. Van Staden made a plea for the karakul industry. The hon. member apologized for his absence tonight. However, I may just mention that the hon. the Minister of Finance has given us R250 000 to spend on promoting the karakul industry. Furthermore, in that area, where the karakul industry has been so severely affected by the drought, we have introduced phase 5, which we call the extreme disaster phase. In terms of this, a much higher subsidy is granted and special concessions are made to those areas which are extreme disaster areas. I agree with the hon. member Mr. Van Staden that we must have great respect for those people. They are people who have lived through years of drought, but who have nevertheless kept their selfrespect and still do not want to ask for State aid, even though they are on their knees.

And they vote National.

And they vote National, as the hon. member says. They are hardy people, the backbone of our nation. That is the kind of human material that money cannot buy.

You will not find a single Prog among them.

And there is not a single Prog among them, as the hon. the Minister of Police says.

Wait until we get there.

Oh! Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition want some good advice from me? He must not send that hon. member there.

The hon. member for Nigel is also a farmer. He has also found out where conditions are favourable. He farms with cattle in the Lydenburg district. He expressed his thanks in this House for the breakthrough which the Department had made in respect of heart-water. I want to thank the hon. member for the thanks he conveyed to the department. I hope that the breakthrough which has been made will be of great value to the hon. member and to that whole region, where heart-water is actually endemic.

The hon. member for Brits made a plea for what he described as the best weed in the world, or something along those lines, namely tobacco. The hon. member asked me to help them to stay in the market. He also referred to the import tariff. That matter is still receiving my attention. It is a matter which is being very seriously considered, but as the hon. member knows, it has wide implication in other spheres as well, and that matter is being examined by myself and by the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. I just want to tell the member that I personally do my best to support that industry of his whole-heartedly, in the face of great opposition from my own wife and children. [Interjections.] I also want to tell him that I shall not easily abandon the tobacco industry. Even though I suffer for it, I shall support the hon. member in his industry.

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of his speech, the hon. the Minister reacted very energetically to some of the points I raised when I participated in the debate earlier this afternoon. What I find very interesting is the fact that the hon. the Minister said it was the policy of his party to prevent price fluctuations—or as I said, wild price fluctuations—in the food industry. This is the objective which that hon. Minister sets himself. When I pointed out earlier this afternoon that there had been a price fluctuation or price increase of about 30% in food prices in 1980, the hon. the Minister attacked me. However, in terms of the hon. the Minister’s own policy, that department failed in 1980 because they could not or did not prevent that price fluctuation. He also said that the increase in the price of food was due to the increase in the price of red meat. He went on to say that for some years before 1980, the price of red meat had fallen a long way behind. I am prepared to accept that, but in terms of the function of the control board which handles that product, I must then ask the hon. the Minister: Did they fail in their attempt to have the meat marketed at a price which would make it worthwhile for the farmer to remain in the industry, or did the hon. the Minister simply allow the red meat producer to lag behind for all those years, with the result that a rapid adjustment had to be made in 1980? In terms of the hon. the Minister’s own policy, therefore, that control board did not perform its function properly.

A second point I made was that the gap between the producer price and the consumer price was widening. I criticized the hon. the Minister and his department for this. You know, Sir, that everyone on that side of the House agrees with me that this is a problem, and yet, when I bring it to the hon. the Minister’s attention, he is angry with me for doing so. The fact that the gap is widening proves that that department and the hon. the Minister cannot achieve their own objectives. What I find more interesting than anything else was the fact that no fewer than seven or eight hon. members on both sides of the House referred this afternoon to the decline in the number of farmers in South Africa. The hon. the Minister did not attack them for doing so, but he did attack me when I referred to this. I tried to explain to the House this afternoon, as I have done on other occasions, that it is in the interests of South Africa that fanners, especially young farmers, should have access to the industry and that we should see to it that our farming community was not too much depleted. It is also the policy of that party. However, I was abused for mentioning it in this House.

The hon. the Minister did not abuse the hon. member.

He attacked me for saying that.

He was just making the point that this was what was happening in the Western world.

I come now to the final point.

The hon. member is over-sensitive.

That hon. member says I am over-sensitive. I also referred to the cartel this afternoon. Let us put our cards on the table in that connection. Last Friday afternoon—before the weekend, therefore—I gave the hon. the Minister a copy of the agreement from which I read certain passages this afternoon. I told the hon. the Minister that I was going to refer to this matter today. It was not necessary for me to give him a copy of it. However, I did so in all decency so that he could react to it.

You are a decent chap.

Because I referred to this cartel this afternoon and tried to prove to this House that this was an abuse that was taking place, the hon. the Minister took offence. It was his duty—I say this with all due respect—to have obtained this document, not today or on Friday, but as far back as last week, in order to do something about it. It is not good enough for the hon. the Minister to say that he has undertaken to protect the consumer against exploitation if the prices were to rise. When he became aware of the cartel—concerning which a document, which he could read, had already been prepared at that stage—he should have acted at once and not have waited until I or some other hon. member raised this matter in this House. The attack which the hon. the Minister made on me, therefore, I dismiss as being without substance.

I find it interesting that no reference has been made in this debate to the problems of the wine industry in the Western Cape. One would have expected, since almost 1 000 farmers met last week to protest against what the Government had done to them by imposing an excise tax, that at least one hon. member representing a constituency in which the wine industry is important would have mentioned certain points to the hon. the Minister in this debate. [Interjections.] I wonder whether we do not have a case here where hon. members boast outside this House about the things they will do, but when they find themselves in the House, they are not prepared to put the views of their own voters.

They are stirring up trouble outside Parliament.

I want to give some advice to hon. members of those constituencies: If you take your constituencies seriously, you must discuss the problems in this place and you must explain to that hon. Minister what the problems are which the farmers are experiencing. Then we shall be in a position to do something positive about them. [Interjections.] I look forward to the contributions which hon. members who represent the wine industry in this House are going to make in this debate this evening and tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, apparently the hon. member for Wynberg is still smarting under the reply he received from the hon. the Minister to questions and statements which he made in this debate. In the first place the hon. member was concerned about the increase in the price of red meat, and he blamed the control board concerned for having allegedly not ensured that meat prices went up gradually. Perhaps the hon. member is right to a certain extent, but my question to the hon. member—and I am asking it as a meat farmer …

So am I.

That is the very reason I am asking the hon. member this question. Perhaps that hon. member farms with hares, while I farm with sheep.

However, if the hon. member is a meat farmer, the following question is being put to him in even greater earnest: If the Housewives’ League oppose meat prices in South Africa, who does his party side with? After all, it has happened in this House that the Opposition objected to increased meat prices as allegedly being detrimental to the consumer in South Africa. That hon. member is now sanctimoniously giving himself out to be the intercessor for the stabilization of meat prices in South Africa. Let me tell that hon. member that I am eternally thankful that I am not subject to the assessment of and decision on meat prices in South Africa by him or his party.

The hon. member reproached the hon. the Minister for attacking him when he objected to the depopulation of the rural areas. What did the hon. member mean by what he said in this context in this House. This is a straightforward question. Does the hon. member blame the Government for the depopulation of the rural areas? If he does blame the Government for it, surely he is overlooking the fact, as stated to him by the hon. the Minister, that in every country in which industrial development is taking place, the same tendency is being experienced. In other words, if the hon. member is not too dense, he will realize that the hon. the Minister told him that the depopulation of the rural areas was a world-wide problem and was not therefore something which could be laid at the door of the NP Government. That is all, and I am unable to grasp why the hon. member cannot understand this fact.

The hon. member also referred to the problems in the wine industry. Apart from the fact that he is a meat farmer, he is also a wine farmer, but what has he said so far in this House in connection with the wine industry? I represent a constituency in which 60% of the farmers are involved in the wine industry, and this evening is the first opportunity I have had to discuss the wine industry. Do you know to what it is attributable that I am only able to discuss it now, Sir? It is because the NP has a far greater representation than the party of the hon. member for Wynberg. The hon. member for Wynberg has probably had 25 turns to speak in this House as against the one which I now have, yet he does not discuss the problems with which the wine industry is faced. He discusses meat prices and the depopulation of the rural areas, but so far he has not yet discussed the problems with which the wine farmers in his own constituency are faced, in spite of the fact that he is, so I hear, a wine farmer. If we wish to solve South Africa’s agricultural problems, I think we must refrain from being hypocritical. I think we ought to have the courage here to speak out candidly about the agricultural problems of South Africa. Just as it is my privilege, so it is also the privilege of the hon. member for Wynberg to speak out candidly about the problems of South Africa’s agricultural industry.

Despite the fact that South Africa has the most unfavourable farming conditions in the world, the South African farmer is indeed pulling his weight. In this regard I think I must agree with the hon. member for Wynberg, provided he is a loyal and dedicated farmer. There is no food shortage in South Africa. In fact, the food which is being produced in South Africa is of a high standard, and compared with food prices in the rest of the world, it is comparatively cheap. Besides, South Africa finds itself in a position to be one of only six countries in the world which are net exporters of food.

In this uncertain world we live in today, a world full of social, economic and political frustrations, which frequently give rise to aversion and conflict in international relations, it is truly an incalculable asset for South Africa to be independent of agricultural imports. This is an achievement which has been accomplished by the farmers of South Africa, in spite of criticism and problems in their own sphere. This is an achievement which is too frequently taken for granted, without according recognition to the purposeful efforts of the South African fanners. This achievement has been accomplished in spite of many setbacks in the farming process. Our country is a country of extremes. Even our national anthem symbolizes this fact, for it speaks of our blue heavens and our deep seas breaking round, our everlasting mountains and plains. In the earliest times the first name given to our country was the Cape of Storms with its flood-waters and gale-force winds, hail and heat-waves. We have some of the poorest agricultural soil in the world, and all these circumstances make it extremely difficult for the fanner to make a balanced or stable subsistence in this country. But thanks to the sympathetic attitude of the Government, which is conscious of its obligations to agriculture, it was always possible in the past to overcome setbacks in agriculture. Without the aid and assistance of the State, rehabilitation would probably not have been possible. It was the downcast and ruined farmer who had to lift up his head, stand up again, put his shoulder to the wheel and carry on once more. Otherwise rehabilitation could not have succeeded. This evening it is a great honour and privilege for me to convey the sincere thanks of the afflicted farmers in my constituency to all who played a part in providing flood assistance after the disaster. I should also like to thank the afflicted farmers for their courageous attempt to get back on to their feet again and carry on for the sake of agriculture and for South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me, as the last cockerel of the 1981 intake, to utter my first crow in this hon. House. [Interjections.] At the outset I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Kobus Horn, who represented the Prieska constituency with distinction for many years. There are a few interesting aspects to the Prieska constituency. As far as the number of voters is concerned, it is the smallest constituency in the Cape Province. But as far as surface area is concerned, it is one of the very largest. It covers approximately five-sixths of the surface area of the Free State. [Interjections.] A great diversity of farming activities take place there, including sheep farming and cattle farming. Then, too, there is the Orange River with its irrigation scheme and all the field crops which are produced there. There are mining activities, too. There is Copperton, which is known for its copper, but which is actually the largest zinc mine in South Africa as well. There is Finch Mine, which produces one-fifth of the De Beers diamond production. There is Northern Lime at Lime Acres, where the largest calcium reserves in South Africa are exploited. At Postmasburg there are the manganese mines, and then one also has a whole series of lesser mining activities, such as the tiger’s eye industry at Niekerkshoop.

However, the greatest asset of this constituency is its people. They are farming folk, aristocrats of nature who, in their apparent simplicity, possess a nobleness of soul which makes them exceptional people. These are my people, whom I have to represent here, and I do so gladly. [Interjections.] Let me explain their outlook on life to hon. members by means of an anecdote. A man was driving through in his car, and in our part of the world the roads are bad. Virtually all the roads are corrugated. A portion of the road between two corrugated ridges had been washed away and the motorist saw the two ears of a hare protruding from the donga. When he came closer, however, he saw that it was not a hare, but a donkey. The road was even worse than he had thought. One type of person visiting our part of the world thinks that he sees the ears of a hare protruding in front of him, but then instead of a hare he finds a donkey and takes fright, fleeing all the way back to the city, but the man who lives there, uses that donkey to plough with. This is the type of person who fives in that area. Hon. members are welcome to visit the rural areas. Everything one can find in the cities is there as well. There is only one difference, and that is that one can find anything in the city, while in the country areas one has to make it oneself. But there is some things which are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain in the country areas, and they are knowledge, knowledge which enables one to do those things which have to be done, as well as the essential information which is necessary to tide one over difficult times and solve problems. Because there is such a drastic shortage of knowledge, I should like to discuss an aspect which affects us, viz. agricultural research. This is the source which has to provide us with information. It is due to effective research and extension that we are self-sufficient in South Africa today as far as food is concerned, and are in addition able to export food. This situation creates a feeling of security. In the year 2000 we shall have to feed twice as many people as we are feeding today. The fact that this has to be done, is one of the cornerstones on which all the economic and political planning of today rests. If this cannot be done, all these plans will collapse. If the assumption is made that this will happen of its own accord, we are living with a false feeling of confidence.

There are signs that all is not well with our agricultural research. I should like to point out a few of these signs. In the first place the number of resignations of technical and professional staff from the department are increasing. In 1979, for example, 30% of the posts were vacant. In the second place, there is clear evidence that the profit margin of the farmer on his produce is shrinking all the time, and this indicates that production efficiency is declining. Only new technology and knowledge can improve that situation. In the third place, the State is faced with the dilemma today that subsidies have to be introduced to keep the consumer price of food low, and here I am thinking of the R170 million subsidy for bread. This means once again that the producer is incapable of keeping food prices low and at the same time operating on a profitable basis. One could elaborate on this at length, but I shall not dwell on the matter now. The fourth point—and this is in fact the most important—is that the research which is being carried out today is aimed at the problems of today, and not the problems of tomorrow. The crisis must first arise before countermeasures are taken or a solution sought. This approach could have catastrophic consequences for the future. The inevitable question which occurs to me is this: “What is causing this situation?” The answer is partly situated in the availability of funds, not funds for salaries, but for the financing of the projects which have to be carried out. For the 1981-’82 financial year an amount of R31,7 million is being allocated for agricultural research. An ever-increasing percentage of this amount is being used for salaries, while an ever-diminishing portion is being used for the direct financing of projects, and this is a very important point. The result of this is that there is In fact only enough money to keep research ticking over. Of intensified research for the future there is virtually no possibility any more. The R31,7 million which is going to be utilized, comprises approximately 0,7% of the gross agricultural production in South Africa. In comparison with other comparable countries, this is one of the lowest percentages. America spends approximately 2,5% of the gross value of its agricultural production on research, and Australia almost 4%. Consequently we have the situation today that there is a relatively well-paid research staff, but they simply do not have enough money to do the research they would like to do.

This leads to frustration, because the researcher cannot really do what he knows he must do and would like to do. Because he must always accept second best, the result is that he exchanges this for the rich and affluent life, with fringe benefits, of the private sector. But for the rest of his life he longs for the truly valuable work he was once able to do. Just see what has happened to the agricultural extension services staff today, and see whether the research staff are not rapidly going the same way.

†We will have to decide whether agricultural research should not be given a higher priority rating. The hon. the Minister of Finance mentioned in his budget speech that it is better to have a hen tomorrow than an egg today. In agricultural research the hen of tomorrow is hatched from the egg of today. May I point out, Sir, that this is a very profitable egg. Economists have shown that the money spent on agricultural research is well spent. The money value resulting from the improved technology provides annual internal rates of return of 40% and more. Compared with the average rate of return of 15% in most businesses, this is a good investment. Money spent on research and development increases productivity. It fights inflation and prevents excessive increases in the prices of agricultural products. It ensures that exported agricultural products are not priced out of the market and increases the profit margin of farmers, and in doing so it prevents the depopulation of the platteland.

*Everything which agriculture has achieved today, has been made possible by research. Several scientists have expressed the opinion that in future food production will have to be improved twice as fast as has been done during the past 20 years. I seriously doubt whether this can be achieved with the present inputs.

Finally there is another facet of research which causes me concern. Since the agricultural faculties of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries were separated, there is no longer any co-ordination in agricultural research. Large-scale duplication of projects, manpower and equipment has occurred, which has made the utilization of available funds less effective. There is not enough time to go into all these facets. I want to conclude by advocating an investigation into the desirability of establishing an agricultural research council to co-ordinate the important research in South Africa in the sphere of agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to compliment the hon. member for Prieska on his excellent speech here this evening. He has shown us very clearly that he is very fully qualified to speak on the subject of agriculture and agricultural research. I am sure that his contributions on this subject in the House are going to be of a very positive nature. I wish him well.

I wish to touch not on research as such but on something which lies very close to research, and that is the question of the extension services in agriculture today. I think anybody who is a practising farmer realizes that there is a deficiency in respect of the extension services that are being rendered by the department. I am particularly concerned at the trend that is taking place at the present time in regard to extension services. The practical role of extension is moving away from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to the commercial sector. I do not intend criticizing the commercial organizations which have undertaken extension services for their patrons, but I must point out that the commercial involvement in extension services is primarily directed at the product.

The danger I see here is that if the private and commercial involvement directs itself primarily towards the product, we shall be facing problems of an ecological nature relating to the suitability or otherwise of products produced in certain areas. Government involvement in extension services in any country is a responsibility that no Government can afford to ignore or to avoid. May I be forgiven if I make reference to a sentence contained in the Grace which is said in one of Natal’s public schools. I do so with humility and respect. It is a short sentence but nevertheless very significant—

Now, to me this context epitomizes an essential ingredient for those who seek a living on the land. It underlines a fact of life which tells us that those who live on the land are not really the true owners. In fact, it goes so far as to indicate that the soil really belongs to posterity.

This is where I see Government involvement finding its place. The true definition of Government involvement becomes immediately apparent if one applies it practically to the extension and field services the Government can render in the agricultural sector. It is quite apparent that the extension services that are available today are unable to meet the requirements of the agricultural sector. Now, there are numerous reasons for this and I do not intend to go into a long list of these. One point I wish to raise here, however, is this. I feel that the extension service has been allowed to become the Cinderella of the whole department. The importance of an efficient and effective extension service cannot be too strongly stressed and I wish to deal with some of the issues in this regard. Let us look at some of the imbalances that exist today in regard to agricultural products.

To name but a few, we have a surplus of maize; we have a shortage of wheat; we have a decline in stock numbers and a shortage of certain dairy products. We must ask ourselves whether a more even spread of production could not have been achieved, and I make bold to say that this could have been done. Therefore, I think that one of the first priorities with which we are confronted in dealing with this aspect is the fact that there must be a physical planning programme system applied in respect of the entire country. The ripple effect of this would be tremendous. It could indicate the various kinds of service that could be rendered. It could also pin-point certain problems that arise from ecological factors in relation to products being produced in areas which are not in any way suitable for the production of those particular products. This would also indicate where one’s marginal areas of production are for various commodities and this could also indicate the benefits that could be derived from the production of crops in high potential areas. In fact, what I am saying is that one’s programme of physical planning could easily give an indication of a regularized system of production. I see this as a means of possibly not overcoming but at least meeting to a great degree the fluctuations that we in regard to agricultural products in this country from one year to another.

When we talk about the practical application of extension services, there is one aspect to which I would particularly like to refer. I would like to refer to the question of soil sampling because I feel that soil sampling is something that cuts right across the whole of the agricultural sphere. In this regard I would point out that soil sampling is an absolute essential in modern-day agriculture because soil sampling is tied up with the correct fertilization rate that should be applied. We know that one of the cost factors involved in production is the question of fertilization. Unless correct fertilization is applied, we are wasting, we can be wasting and we are likely to waste and abuse the benefits that can be derived from correct fertilization.

You are talking a lot of sense.

Thank you, Sir.

He always does.

In the time remaining to me there is one facet of the department to which I would like to pay particular recognition and that is the agricultural information service that is rendered by the department. I feel that the contribution that this service makes is something that is of tremendous benefit to the farmer and to any of those who are interested in agriculture. In closing, may I just say that I think that the service it renders is one that can be beneficial to everyone.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by saying that the hon. member for Mooi River spoke very well indeed. I also want to say that the first crow of the last crower was loud and clear, and I think the people in his constituency are going to crow with pleasure when they hear about the contribution which the hon. member for Prieska made. Even then I am not yet finished with the positive part of my speech. I also wish to agree sincerely with the view which I heard from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in respect of a possible method by means of which new irrigation land below the PK le Roux Dam will in future be allocated, viz. the old method of application and selection. That brings to an end of the positive part of my speech.

Next, I have here in front of me, in my notes, four words which I hope will not be ruled out of order, for they exemplify the matter I wish to discuss. The words are a jackal, a germ, a policeman and a piece of meat. The hon. the Prime Minister, and some of the other hon. Ministers as well, have on various occasions repeatedly singled out two problems in the socio-economic sphere. The first was the inflation problem, and the second was the problem of the influx of people to the urban areas. If our Government is engaged in large-scale activities to cope with these two problems and bring them under control, then I think we should be careful that small jackals do not destroy the economic vineyard of this country. To my way of thinking, one of these small jackals, with a rather poisonous tooth, is the Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act. If I remember correctly, this Act was passed by Parliament in 1967. In 1970 the attention of local authorities was drawn to the provisions of this Act by means of a circular, and they were requested to comply with its provisions. These provisions caused large local authorities, the urban local authorities—the great majority of them, I think with the exception of one—to decide to leave their abattoirs in the hands of the Abattoir Corporation. What problem did the smaller local authorities experience? In the first place—and this was also done by way of a circular—it was made clear to these people that there was no possibility of their being taken over by the Abattoir Corporation. These people really found themselves between the devil and the deep blue sea. In the first place they could barely afford to comply with those provisions, and in the second place they would not be taken over by the Abattoir Corporation either.

I just want us to examine briefly the consequences of the strict application of this Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act. In the first place compliance with the provisions thereof causes an immediate increase in the cost of living. I should just like to explain to you why I say this. If an abattoir has to be closed down as a result of the strict enforcement of this Act, animals that are frequently able to graze within sight of town-dwellers now have to be conveyed on the hoof by truck for at least 50 km if they have to be conveyed to any centralized abattoir. This is 50 km in one direction only. It means a 100 km in both directions. Then the local butcher has to cover the same distance there and back if he wishes to carry on his business. If that were the end of the story, I would say: Very well, then, it is 200 km, and let us leave the matter at that. However, we must remember that country dwellers, Whites and non-Whites, earn less per capita than urban dwellers. They are also great consumers of offal. The Act lays down that if the butcher has to fetch the meat from this centralized abattoir in his refrigerated truck, he may not load the offal into the same container, with the result that he has to undertake another journey of 100 km back and forth in order to supply that offal. That means that at least 300 km have to be travelled to enable the butcher to deliver that meat to his clients. But that is not what happens in practice. What happens in practice—and I have specific examples of this, and I believe there are more—is that the butcher says that it will not pay him to acquire this refrigerated truck, which these days costs at least R20 000, and still supply meat to the consumers in the small local towns at reasonable prices. What are the consequences? Here I come to the second point which I mentioned, viz. the germ. This Act makes provision for hygienic slaughtering. But that is precisely what we are not achieving, because the local butcher then closes down, and people turn to the so-called backyard slaughterers.

Then I want to come to the policeman. This has actually happened in practice. The policeman has to enforce the law. The first person whom he went to—and this is not a fictitious example; this actually happened—was the dominee, he who had to set his congregation an example, but he also slaughtered in his backyard. Then he went to the school principal, he who had to be an example to his pupils. But he also slaughtered in his backyard. Thirdly, as the hon. the Minister can guess, it was the local magistrate who was also slaughtering in his backyard.

And the MP?

Fortunately the MP’s town still has an abattoir at present. I should like to refer to what the previous hon. the Minister of Agriculture once said in this House, with reference to a visit he had paid to one of the big abattoirs in America. An American looked at the hon. the Minister and said: “Mr. Minister, you will have to wear something else on your feet if you want to walk through this abattoir of ours”. This was a new and a very modern abattoir. The hon. the Minister then had to don a pair of Wellingtons. The hon. the Minister then asked the American whether they were not concerned about the hygienic aspect. The American told him that as long as the carcase did not come into contact with the manure, no American would die of any disease. What did the hon. the Minister say a few years ago? I quote—

[Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give very urgent consideration to the application of this Act. I know what its object was. Its object was probably to protect the abattoirs functioning in controlled areas under abattoir corporations against unfair competition. I just cannot understand, though, how a small abattoir in Putsonderwater, Naboomspruit, or say, for example, in Fauresmith, can compete with an abattoir in Kimberley or Bloemfontein, which functions under the auspices of the Abattoir Corporation. That is why I think that the hon. the Minister should reconsider this Act. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Fauresmith who has just resumed his seat, discussed dung, but really wanted to speak about meat. However, it seemed to me as if he was eventually speaking about compost, and had only left out one ingredient.

I had wanted to say that I was one of the bankrupt brigade, but when I looked at the hon. member for Nigel I thought that he was going to doctor me. Now I have decided to say that I am sure one of the penniless farmers, one of those who are unable to pocket any price increase for their product this year in spite of a relatively strong increase in the price of their inputs. We are now in a situation in which we use 25% of the country’s liquid petroleum products, of which the price is not even determined in South Africa. Moreover, our other inputs of production requisites are delivered to us by only a few oligopolies, and these people simply pass on all their price increases, cost increases and increases in interest to us. They also include a margin, and even a margin for future capital works, just in case. I think that we could say in general that the prices of our inputs are not determined in the product divisions of companies so much as they are determined in the bar of the Rand Club and those of other drinking places. Or are they waterholes? Our farmers are trapped between increased input costs on the one hand and on the other, administered prices with the basic philosophy of cheap food for the masses. It is to be understood, then, that in our industry we do not only have penniless farmers, but also sour and embittered people. In these circumstances the farmers believe that any change will be an improvement, and in this connection we have been anticipated by some of the columnists in our agricultural periodicals, for example Simon Fis …

“Viskop.”

No man, not “Viskop,” Fiske. He has dusted off the books Life is Fair and Wealth of Nations and then without further ado he attacks the whole agricultural set-up and says: “Throw it out”. Some of the leaders in the agricultural sphere accept the call of the day and are saying: “Let the free market mechanism operate. We shall do our own thing. We shall determine our own domestic prices. We shall decide how much of our product will go to the domestic and how much to the foreign market. We carry our own losses and forget about the Josef’s policy which must protect the country against failed harvests.” That is all very well, but before our farmers harbour such ideas they must in my opinion first consider the inputs into our industry made by the Government. We must evaluate what the consumers and the Government of the country do for our industry.

I want to begin by referring to the control board system. These institutions are discussed with great authority by people who know nothing about them. The duties of the control boards in this country are threefold, viz. the development of the market, the development of the source of the product and, in order to correlate these two matters, the control boards have, thirdly, to ensure that there is always an adequate flow of products to the markets. Fortunately, in our case the boards have to regulate the export of products.

People are so quick to refer to the success of the so-called free market system in the USA, but it is not so long ago that the American government paid the farmers there not to produce. If that is the free market mechanism, then the previous speaker never spoke about compost.

There was also talk about rationalization of the control boards, viz. that one control board should deal with more products. A real danger here, however, is that the interests of one product could be given priority at the expense of another. For example, it happened two years ago that a premium of R15 was imposed on the consumption of grain sorghum in the stockfeed factories. As a result, the grain sorghum industry was obliged to export at a loss of R57 per ton.

Then, too, it is not merely coincidence that we are the only country in Africa, and one of five countries in the world, that exports foodstuffs. Our climatic and soil conditions are poorer than those of any of the sub-Sahara countries in Africa, but effective control enables us to export our products.

Apart from that I want to refer to the role played by the Railways in our industry. By the end of this year the Railways will already have invested approximately R100 million in rolling stock to deal with the export of maize. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Hennie Loots on the effective introduction of blockload trains.

The next point is that it is in the field of financing at a low interest rate that the Government really makes its major input, and this is done by way of the Land Bank. The Land Bank and agriculture are inextricably bound up with one another. For example, the Land Bank provides the cooperatives with funds to enable them to purchase stocks for the farmers, it affords the farmers the necessary credit facilities which meet approximately 60% of their requirements. At this stage approximately R166 million has already been invested in grain elevators. Funds are also provided to young farmers to enable them to obtain their own land. Bridging capital is provided, too, in order to help farmers over drought periods. However, the greatest task of the Land Bank is the capital provided for buying up products.

With this year’s maize harvest the Land Bank had to provide approximately R15 milliard to the control board to buy up the maize harvest. If we were to obtain this money on the free market, where would the funds come from to provide our new harvest, particularly since approximately three million tons is to be carried over to the next season?

This brings me to controlled prices. It is said that controlled prices protect the weak producer. However, it is not only the weak producer that they protect. They also protect the small producer who does not enjoy the benefits of a large turnover. Controlled prices ensure that the largest possible number of farmers can remain in the rural areas, and surely that is our stated policy. Both sides of this House agree, surely, that we should keep as many farmers as possible on the platteland. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to thank the hon. Whip for having granted me five minutes to reply very briefly to a matter of considerable current interest raised by the hon. member for Fauresmith. He quoted the previous hon. Minister of Agriculture and contended that the Minister had also been of the opinion that the Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act is too rigorous. If I remember correctly, the former hon. Minister of Agriculture himself introduced the Abattoir Industry Act here which is in fact supplementary to the Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act. My position is that I have an Act to administer, because that Act is on the Statute Book. It is for the present Minister and the former Minister to approach the Cabinet and say that the Act is too rigorous and should be watered down a little. It is in their power to do so. However, as long as that piece of legislation is on the Statute Book, I have to apply it.

It depends how you apply it.

Very well, I shall come to that shortly. However, I merely mention this in passing.

Hendrik, do please make a recommendation.

In the first instance we must bear in mind that meat is a highly perishable product. Secondly, we must bear in mind that abattoirs are capital and labour intensive. Thirdly, we must take into account the fact that as medical science—indeed, all sciences in the country—have progressed, the hygiene requirements have become more stringent. We cannot still apply the standards of hygiene in respect of meat and animal products that were valid 10 to 15 years ago, today, because due to technology this simply cannot be done. Hygiene or no, in order to market meat we need facilities with which to receive an animal and keep it in humane conditions. The animal must then be stunned, bled, dressed and eviscerated. We then have to separate the various products from one another so that they can be offered to the purchaser in a manageable form. Then there is also refrigeration, because it has been proved scientifically that immediate refrigeration is essential to combat rapid decomposition. If we did not comply with the requirements of hygiene in our abattoirs, they would not look very different to the way they look now, due to the processes I have just mentioned. The purpose of the legislation relating to abattoirs was to create order out of the chaos that prevailed. We can now admit to one another that the kind of product that is still being slaughtered and dished up to the public at some abattoirs nowadays, is a disgrace. It was the task of the Government to see to it that order was created in the industry. It was also the task of the Government to see to it that when abattoirs were established, an unnecessary burden was not imposed on those who operated the abattoir, in other words the community involved.

I could mention innumerable examples to hon. members of towns being very angry because their abattoirs had not been approved. The abattoir is then granted, built at great expense and within a year, the town in question approaches us again appealing for a revision of tariffs because they can no longer make ends meet. There is not a single town that has come to say we should reduce the tariffs. They have all said that we should increase them. I am sympathetic towards the smaller towns because I myself come from a small town, but when I see what the Abattoir Commission and the Division of Veterinary Services has done to draw up standard plans with regard to the construction of abattoirs, then I regard it as phenomenal. The commission estimates that a grade E abattoir for the slaughter of 45 sheep per day costs approximately R20 000. The cost of a grade E abattoir for up to three units per day—a cattle unit comprises up to 15 sheep—is estimated at R53 000. These are figures which the commission obtained from a consultant. The cost of a grade D abattoir with 8 units is estimated at R117 000. The cost of a grade D abattoir with 15 cattle units is estimated at R217 000. I think that as far as the smaller towns in our country are concerned the Abattoir Commission has succeeded in establishing something that is acceptable and that the communities can afford. I really understand the problem, and I am pleased the hon. member raised it because it keeps us on our toes to consider the whole matter. Particularly as regards the smaller towns in the outlying areas where the towns are isolated, we must keep a constant eye on these matters. However, I just want to say this evening that I have come to the conclusion that we must tell our towns: “Very well, build your abattoirs. We are prepared to grant you a maximum tariff, and not a cent more. Any excess in the cost of operating the abattoirs must be paid by the town’s ratepayers. Then it is a matter between the towns and their ratepayers and not between the butchers, the Municipality and the Minister. We are still looking at this matter but we can no longer deal with the representations being made to us. It is getting absolutely out of control. I therefore say that one must try to design a system in terms of which one says to a town: “Build an abattoir, but if you ask more than the stipulated tariff, then approach the ratepayer for the additional money, because we are not prepared to incorporate it in the tariffs.”

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Fauresmith. Perhaps the hon. the Minister should sack those consultants, for I am sure that it is likely that a town like Weenen in Natal, which I know well and where there is a small abattoir, will now have to spend R20 000 or R30 000, and that is absolute nonsense. The Muslim butcher will now have to fetch his cattle from Ladysmith, and already that meat which he sells to the people will cost him R40 more than it used to cost him. We must realize that we too have a Third World situation here. We have been managing very well for 2 000 years and far fewer people have died from diseases caused by the fresh meat they had eaten than from diseases caused by the hygienic tinned meat they had eaten.

†We have heard a lot about extension problems and about the need to get good young farmers on the land. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South did not have the time to raise one point and I should now like to raise it on his behalf, and that is that if one could look at a scheme whereby extension officers could work for five years as extension officers. At the end of that time they could obtain a loan from Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure to buy their own farms. If the hon. the Deputy Minister is keen to have part-time farmers, they could be kept on when they are granted those loans on condition they spend two years in part-time extension service training the next extension officer. In that way I believe we shall get good extension officers, because most of them would like to farm for themselves. They will have an incentive to do work as extension officers and, by staying on a part-time basis, they will be able to train others. I think that something along those lines may be suitable, although obviously it will have to be thought through.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the department on its beef performance testing scheme. I believe that this is a fine example of what the State should in fact be doing. It is relatively cheap. I believe it is the kind of input which has boosted the quality of our commercial herds immensely. In relation to that, I should also like to congratulate the department on the support for the State Bonsmara herd. While the Bonsmara has some drawbacks, the important thing is that, by promoting the Bonsmara, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries has set a standard of excellence and a functional efficiency which has benefited the other breed societies, served them as a very good example and encouraged our beef industry as a whole.

You are very positive tonight. I appreciate it.

But you are not the Minister concerned any more.

The beef performance testing scheme is really a very fine example of what the State should in fact be doing in agriculture.

I should also like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the system of housing loans for farm labourers …

Three “dankies” in three minutes!

… and more particularly on the way in which the fund is administered and also the way in which the value of loans granted has been increased to keep pace with inflation. I may also mention that there are grants made for providing water and electricity. I believe that what is good enough for Soweto has to be good enough for the farm labourer. That is the only way in which we are going to keep able, intelligent people on our farms. There is, however, one aspect the department could consider, and that is in regard to the fact that it will only grant these loans on security of a first mortgage bond. It seems to me that often a very good farmer may well for reasons of financing already have a first mortgage bond on his farm, and perhaps a relatively small one at that. What it does mean, however, is that then he cannot get a loan for his farm labourers’ housing. I think this is an aspect that could be looked at, but I believe that the department has taken a very sensible and long-term view in regard to the housing of farm labourers in adopting this scheme of subsidizing the interest rates on these loans.

Sir, Natal has particular problems with farm labour. This is because of the labour tenant system which we have inherited from the days of Sir Theophilus Shepstone. To a large extent this system has been phased out and I am aware that what I am dealing with also has a bearing on the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. There are still many farms in Natal where this labour tenant system has not been phased out. The problem that is arising here is one of alternative accommodation. There just is not enough alternative accommodation for people who are evicted from farms or are given notice to leave. What in fact happens—and there have been a number of incidents in the last few years—is that a farmer acquires a farm on which there may be as many as 20 families residing. He has paid a relatively high price for the farm and wants to farm it. Clearly, he cannot do so with that number of people on it. What does he then do? He gives them notice. There is a tremendous amount of bitterness generated amongst the farm labourers because they do not have anywhere to go because no other farmers want to take them. The farmer who has bought the farm in good faith, wanting to farm it, also becomes upset and bitter about the whole situation. I do not believe that this is good for our rural areas.

Clearly, there has to be some kind of alternative accommodation available. Just as the hon. the Minister mentioned earlier that there is a process under way of a depopulation of our rural areas—the hon. member for Swellendam also referred to this—I must point out that it is a fact that as farming becomes more efficient the percentage of people on farms in relation to the total population declines. We get the urbanization and industrialization phenomenon. We have had it for a long time. Then there is also the squatter problem, the problem of people moving to cities. We had it in the 1930’s when we had White “bywoners” on all our farms. Where are they today? They are all living in our urban areas. That is going to be our problem in future too. I believe that this is going to become a real problem on our Natal farms, because what is happening there now is that farms are becoming less labour-intensive, the labour tenant system has been abolished, people are buying bigger farms with the result that they do not want more labour on those farms. They also want better educated farm labourers, people who can at least read and write. Consequently the farmer finds himself in a very difficult position. He is like a Feudal lord in the position of a chief, as it were, because people approach him and ask him for an “indawo”, as we say in Natal. The farmer cannot accept those people or else he may find that he has people living on his farm with very large families, just like our grandparents and great-grandparents used to have in their days. The farmer cannot support those people. The young men have to go to the big cities such as Johannesburg, Durban or Cape Town, to seek employment, and the result is that the farmer ends up having, for every one labourer, perhaps 20 to 30 other people who are dependent on that particular labourer. Where should those people be? They should be in some sort of accommodation off the farms.

I do not believe it will help sending them to the homelands because in Natal certainly what one sees develop there is that White farming areas are lush, well-developed, well-cared for, while just over the hill perhaps, or even across the river or across the road, one has a rural area which is completely denuded of natural resources. This, I do not believe, is a good thing in our society. That kind of thing is not a good thing for any society.

I believe we have to support the call by the hon. member for Albany for the appointment of some sort of commission of inquiry, a commission rather like the Wiehahn Commission, which can be asked to look specifically into the question of farm labour and all the circumstances surrounding the whole question of farm labour in South Africa. I should therefore Eke to ask the hon. the Minister to give this particular matter his consideration.

We cannot farm in South Africa without Black people. We will need them more and more on our farms. We are already needing them. If our grandfathers or great-grandfathers were to come back to our farms today and see what Black people are doing on our farms they would be amazed to realize to what extent we are dependent on them. Finally, I would urge that in the process of training Blacks we should look at some sort of basic animal husbandry course or a health course. At places like Boschkop in the Transvaal or Baynesfield in Natal Black people could be taught how to inject, how to dose, how to inoculate and how to gain a basic insight into animal health so that we can have these sort of men available on our farms. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North sounds as if he is a member of the Mutual Admiration Society tonight. I thank him for his positive contribution. However, I am afraid that I cannot say the same about my voter the hon. member for Wynberg. He was very critical of the fact that nothing has yet been said about the wine industry in this debate.

It is clear to me that his memory is very short, because it was in the Second Reading debate, just after certain announcements were made and the hon. member for Ceres immediately reacted to them at the first opportunity, that I wondered why the hon. member for Wynberg had not yet reacted at all to this aspect at that time. In order to refresh his memory somewhat, I want to remind him that in his speech during the Second Reading debate, the hon. member for Ceres made three requests. The first was that a maturation rebate should be considered. This has already been granted in the interim. In the second place he asked for a broader-based approach to planning in all farming activities in the Western Cape. In the meantime the Jacobs Committee has already been enlarged and is already giving attention to this aspect. In the third instance the hon. member for Ceres asked for the purposeful promotion of exports.

He also followed up that request during the discussion of the Industries, Commerce and Tourism Vote, and the hon. the Minister concerned is also already giving attention to that.

Last week one of the largest gatherings that I have ever experienced, took place in Paarl, when approximately 2 000 wine farmers spoke about their industry with a great sense of responsibility. Therefore, I want to tell the hon. member for Wynberg that five members of this side of the House were present, and I did not see him or any of his fellow party members there. The purpose of that meeting was to indicate the wine farmer’s solidarity with the KWV and to grant their support to the KWV. An interview was requested at that meeting with the hon. the Prime Minister and with other relevant Ministers. That interview has already been arranged and the hon. the Prime Minister will address a delegation of the KWV and the wine farmers on 30 September.

However, I should like to come to another industry that is very closely linked up with the wine industry, and this is the wheat industry, because since Biblical times wine and bread have gone very well together. Last week, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries announced a wheat price which was an increase of approximately 12% on the previous year’s price. The price of R241.40 per ton of Al wheat is the exact price for which the wheat farmers and the Wheat Board asked. I should very much like to extend my hearty thanks to the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet on behalf of the industry for a very reasonable, fair price in the interest of the producer and of the consumer.

Over the years a very high premium has been placed on South Africa’s self-sufficiency with regard to wheat production and it is absolutely essential from more than one viewpoint. Bread is one of the most important staple foods in South Africa today and from a strategic viewpoint, we must make sure that there is an adequate supply of wheat in the country at all times.

Apparently the days when South Africa was able to import wheat very easily from abroad, are something of the past. The world production of wheat for the 1981-’82 harvest year is estimated at 460 million tons. In contrast to that South Africa’s production is a mere two million tons. The world production for 1981-’82 shows a 7% increase on last year’s production, but on the other hand, the consumption of wheat products in the world has increased by 17% over the past year and will also amount to 460 million tons. If this trend continues, it is unavoidable that within the foreseeable future a position may arise where the world supply cannot comply with the world demand. When South Africa had to import wheat during the past year, we were able to obtain it from the USA only. The other great wheat producing countries of the world such as Argentina, Canada and Australia had no more supplies available for us. Therefore, it is extremely important for wheat production in South Africa to be encouraged rather than discouraged.

The total consumption in South Africa at the moment is approximately 1,9 million tons. With a population of 30 million in South Africa this means a per capita consumption of wheat of 64 kg per annum. It is anticipated that with the population increase and with increased standards of living, the consumption of wheat will have doubled by the end of the century in comparison with the position at the moment. The South African wheat farmer is often accused of inefficiency because of the allegation that the South African wheat price is higher than the price in the USA. The USA price is the criterion used throughout the world. With a direct comparison, this may seem to be the position, although the 268 000 tons of wheat that was imported from the USA this year, reached this country, after freight and other costs, at practically the same price as the domestic price.

In any event, it is not the price per unit that is the deciding factor, but the financial income per unit of land. Now it is true that whereas the South African yield is a mere 1,2 tons per ha, the average yield in the USA is 2,3 tons per ha and therefore the American wheat farmer is in a much better position. The poorer South Africa yield is due to lower fertility of the soil and a fluctuating climate, and once again this shows how necessary research is for developing better adapted cultivars in order to attempt to obtain a higher yield.

Despite the lower yield and despite the fact that our price compares well with the price abroad, it is worth noting that South Africa has the cheapest bread in the world. In recent times the allegation has often been made—in this debate too—that orderly marketing—i.e. the marketing system, together with control boards and cooperatives and the concomitant alleged interference with the system of supply and demand—is to the detriment of the consumer. As far as I am concerned, this is totally unfounded, particularly in the wheat industry. I just want to refer hon. members to the position in the wheat industry before control was introduced, when total chaos prevailed with regard to production, processing and consumption. In contrast to this, today control is efficient and promotes the rationalization of an industry which provides the public with its daily bread.

I have already pointed out that the South African wheat price is comparable to the world wheat price. Nevertheless the endproduct—for instance unsubsidized white bread costs 40 cents—is a mere 25% of the price of a similar product abroad. To produce wheat in South Africa today, to store it, mill it, bake and market it in the form of a loaf of bread of which the quality is not at all inferior, and in addition to maintain the present price level, is the best testimonial for the advantages of control in this industry. In the final price of bread, the raw material wheat in South Africa represents 40%, whilst in the USA it is a mere 8%. The control system in South Africa—indeed it has already been said here today—is definitely not without its faults, but it has so many more advantages than disadvantages that it would be to the detriment of all, the consumer in particular, if it should be tampered with in an irresponsible fashion.

Then I should like to refer to the annual report of a very large industrial company in South Africa, a company which, as far as I can ascertain, does not have a tremendously sympathetic attitude towards the Government, but is apparently more sympathetically inclined towards the Opposition. In the annual report of that company the following is said about this specific aspect—

This is specifically with regard to the wheat industry—

In conclusion this part of the report reads as follows—

This is a statement which was made in connection with control by one of the largest industrial companies in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, tonight I should like to refer to a matter which is of special interest to agriculture. It is the manufacture of liquid fuels from agricultural products and agricultural waste products.

This matter is of interest to agriculture for two reasons. On the one hand, agriculture is practically exclusively dependent upon diesel oil as a liquid fuel, and therefore it is particularly vulnerable when boycotts take place or when shortages in the provision of diesel oil are experienced. In the second place, the possible manufacture of fuels from agricultural products provides the agriculturalists with an alternative market for their agricultural products.

Since 1973 a great deal has been said in South Africa about the possibilities of manufacturing liquid fuels from agricultural products and agricultural waste products. In due course a need arose for a framework or for guidelines according to which people could plan when working in this direction. The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs issued a Press statement on 7 February 1980 and I want to refer to certain aspects of it. The Press statement is quite a bulky document and I want to deal with four points only. The first point is that an eventual maximum contribution of 15% to 20% of our liquid fuel consumption can be aimed at, by utilizing one or both of the alcohols or even plant-oils. The second point is that duties and levies with regard to alcohols, for instance, will be brought into line with petroleum fuels which are manufactured from indigenous coal, provided that it will apply in proportion to the energy value thereof. The third point is that additional encouragement and incitement will be given to efforts and true contributions towards replacing diesel oil only. The object will be the lowest level of encouragement which will lead to a significant production and consumer volume of the alternative fuel. The fourth point reads that apart from incentives in the form of excise and levy benefits which have been specifically stipulated beforehand, and the creation of a generally favourable climate, the Government will accept no responsibility for the profitability of any enterprise, the acceptability of its product as a motor fuel, the continuity of demand, the marketing of products, the availability of raw materials or any other assistance or protective measures.

In 1980 the S.A. Agricultural Union appointed a Fuel Committee, and the terms of reference of this committee were twofold in nature: They had to investigate the possibilities of manufacturing alcohol from agricultural products and secondly, they had to establish what the desirable involvement of the SAAU should be in this respect. The committee’s point of departure was that the conversion of agricultural products and agricultural waste products into alcohols should take place on an economic basis. On the basis of the report of the Fuel Committee, the SAAU made certain recommendations and submitted findings in August this year. I should like to refer to some of these recommendations tonight. Once again it is a thick document, and I have taken a few recommendations only from it which I should like to emphasize here tonight and which I should like the hon. the Minister to follow up and possibly weigh up together with the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. I have made a thorough study of the document, and the findings and the recommendations of the SAAU indicate to me that the entire situation was dealt with in a particularly responsible and sober fashion.

The first recommendation that I want to elucidate, is in connection with research. The finding of the SAAU is that expenditure on research in South Africa for developing alternative fuels from agricultural products and agricultural waste products, is particularly conservative. They recommend that the State’s contribution in this regard should be increased, and I should like to support this recommendation. Specific reference is also made to the work which the Agricultural Engineering Division of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is doing at Silverton to develop sunflower oil and sunflower-ester in order to replace diesel oil. It is requested that this specific research project, and projects of this nature for manufacturing fuel on a small scale on a farm, be given further support. One can support this recommendation too.

The SAAU also comes to a conclusion in connection with the co-ordination of research. The CSIR is responsible for the co-ordination of research in this sphere. It is true that it is always difficult to persuade people to co-operate. However, in this case special tribute is being paid to the CSIR, because the Agricultural Union which is a totally independent body, says that the co-ordination by the CSIR in this sphere is of the best in the world. They can speak with authority on this subject, because officials of the S.A. Agricultural Union have investigated this matter in countries abroad.

The Agricultural Union also refers to special circumstances in South Africa. On the one hand we have cheap reserves of coal which can be used for the manufacture of alcohol. On the other hand, the agricultural conditions are not always stable and favourable. It is useless to apply the results of other countries in South Africa, and in our particular situation the S.A. Agricultural Union has come to the conclusion that at this juncture, alcohol can most probably be manufactured more cheaply and more economically from coal than from agricultural products. In certain circumstances it may in fact be profitable for a manufacturer to manufacture alcohol from agricultural products, but then one of two things must take place: Either the raw materials must be provided at a cheaper rate or the State must be prepared to make extra concessions above those that have already been announced. For instance, it is maintained that ethanol—i.e. ethyl alcohol—can be profitably manufactured from sugar-cane provided that the price of sugar-cane is lower than the price which sugar-cane manufacturers are receiving at the moment in terms of the quota system for the manufacture of sugar from sugar-cane.

The S.A. Agricultural Union comes to the conclusion that at this juncture it is in fact economical to manufacture alcohol economically from agricultural waste products, i.e. not from say, wheat sorghum or sugar-cane, but from agricultural waste products. However, the waste products that are available in the form of sugar or starch and which can be fermented, are unfortunately fairly limited.

A further recommendation of the Agricultural Union will probably not be accepted so readily by the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. They are asking the State to consider, when farmers manufacture fuel on a small scale on their own farms and do not sell it, for them to be exempted from any levies or taxes. Furthermore, they are asking that if farmers establish a co-operative or a society and, if they should manufacture fuel for their own consumption from sugar-cane, for instance in the Eastern Transvaal, such fuel should also be exempted from any levies or taxes. This is definitely not a simple question, but I nevertheless want to ask the hon. the Minister to discuss it with the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and ask him to give a very sympathetic hearing to this.

Then there is another recommendation which can be accepted without any problems, and this is that the State should apply the additional concessions that have been promised for the manufacture of diesel fuel, to an alternative fuel which replaces diesel oil entirely, such as sunflower oil. As far as this is concerned, I do not think there should be any problems. Whilst on the subject of the work being carried out with sunflower oil at Silverton, I just want to mention that I had the privilege of visiting Mr. Japie Bruwer’s team working in this area, and I am convinced that these people are taking the world lead with regard to this research. This is work that we can be proud of and I also want to make a special request of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to give them every possible assistance. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the contention of the hon. member for Swellendam that it is fortunate that the PFP does not determine meat prices, because if that were to be the case, our meat farmers would have been done for.

And the consumer.

Yes, and the consumer. I also agree with the hon. member for Swellendam that we need not be ashamed of the achievements of the South African farmer. We can be justly proud of our farmers.

The hon. member for Prieska made his maiden speech this evening. He crowed here for the first time and I want to congratulate him on that. He made a very well-considered speech here. He referred to the people of the North West whom he represents. He also referred to the high priority which agricultural research ought to enjoy and to the fact that we ought really to spend more on research than we are doing at present.

The hon. member for Mooi River said that we needed a long term plan for the future of agriculture. He said that if we planned properly we might be able to eliminate surpluses and shortages. I agree that one could probably do more to plan for future needs in respect of certain foodstuffs. However, the problem is that we do not know what is going to happen on the Highveld in January. We do not have long-term weather forecasting facilities. We certainly cannot carry out long-term planning before we have advance weather forecasts. One can move within certain parameters, but the uncertainty in regard to climatic conditions is the limiting factor. However, I concede that we could certainly do more, particularly with regard to the application of existing knowledge, soil analysis etc.

The hon. member for Heilbron said that there were people who criticized the existing control system for the marketing of maize and who want us to make greater use of the free market mechanism. I know that there are many people who say that the present marketing system or scheme of the Maize Board is inadequate and that things could be done better. However, before we throw the existing maize marketing scheme overboard, we should first ensure that we are not exchanging a horse for a donkey. The present maize control scheme has afforded the farmer security and stability. Even though the scheme is criticized for being inadequate I do not know of any other scheme or plan which could ensure a better dispensation for the maize farmer.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North really surprized me this evening by raising a number of positive points here. I want to thank him sincerely for his praise of the department for the work being done in respect of the cattle performance testing scheme, particularly with regard to the Bonsmara.

After all, he is a defrocked clergyman, is he not?

Well, I am not sure about that. He did mention the housing schemes for farm labourers. I could just point out that it is not essential for a first mortgage to be imposed on the farm. The department accepts even second, third or fourth mortgages—I think the hon. the Deputy Minister said even fifth mortgages—and therefore there is no problem in that regard.

The hon. member for Paarl, in a very positive speech, referred to the increase in the wheat price. Actually I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to make a few remarks about the wheat price. In my opinion the present wheat price is the result of responsible deliberation by responsible leaders of the industry, from the level of organized agriculture to the Wheat Board. The Wheat Board approaches the matter of the wheat price in such a responsible way that in the first place, as a board comprising producers, millers, bakers, private dealers and consumers, it came to a unanimous decision concerning the wheat price. I want hon. members and the public at large, who so often criticize the control board system, to take cognizance of the fact that we have here a board representing all sectors, a board on which all sectors are represented.

Can hon. members imagine a consumer, a baker, a farmer and, just to make it even more difficult, a miller, agreeing with one another? However, the Wheat Board has succeeded in reaching a unanimous decision, and one can only do this if one approaches a matter in a responsible way and does not come forward with demands which take no account of the realities of the situation. I want to congratulate the Wheat Board once again on the responsible way in which they dealt with the interests of the producers, the whole industry, and the consumers in their recommendation to me. That price was considered by the department and by the National Marketing Board, right up to the Cabinet, and no one questioned that price recommendation. If that is not a practical illustration of the success that control can bring about, if that is not a practical illustration of the stability and order that can be achieved for all by the responsible implementation and use of the Marketing Act, then I do not know what a practical example of that is. The hon. member for Paarl also raised another important point. Bread is one of the commodities that is fully controlled from the grain of wheat seed to the loaf itself. Our bread is very cheap. In a previous debate, the hon. member for Wynberg quoted from a report in the Weekend Post of 15 August 1981 as follows (Hansard, 17 August 1981, col. 1147)—

These prices are just this side of paradise. I do not take it amiss of the hon. member. He quoted a housewife who lived in Florida for six weeks and told her story to the Weekend Post. The hon. member came and retold that story here in order to indicate to us how expensive our food is. However, this department is also represented in America, and we sent some of our people to Florida. We sent them to the biggest food distribution chain store in Florida with the cheapest prices. Our people there then sent a telex to us concerning the “Winbitsy, a large food chain store group operating in Florida, United States of America”. I quote—

Take note—

But that woman said that it cost R3,20 for a leg which was enough for six people. The fact is that that leg costs R9,48 in Florida in the USA. Therefore the woman concerned took a little off the price. Sir, this “leg of lamb, frozen New Zealand” is actually meat of very poor quality. It is not very palatable. I quote further—

I therefore think the woman must have made a mistake. She deducted R10. I want to tell the hon. member that his source was apparently an unreliable one. I do not take it amiss of him, but he had a very unreliable source.

We shall take this up.

The following is stated in respect of bread—

Then it goes on—

But the woman states that one can obtain three loaves of cut-bread for 70 cents. I do not take it amiss of the hon. member for not having quoted the truth. It is by no means his fault. But I just want to tell him that he must beware of housewives who pay visits to Florida. Their stories do not always hold water.

I shall send your Hansard to the lady concerned.

Certainly. By all means. The hon. member can also include a copy of this document I have quoted.

Please. She is the wife of a lecturer at the University of Port Elizabeth. I think she will be very interested.

My department made this survey, and I know it is correct.

*I know that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is a little disappointed that the facts do not support their story. However, they fully correspond with what the hon. member for Paarl said about the wheat price and the bread price.

The hon. member for Pretoria East made a very interesting speech. It showed that he is a person who knows his subject, someone who is an authority in that field. Actually, I am pleased that he discussed the matter of agricultural products and agricultural waste products as possible sources of fuel. The hon. member also put a few requests to me. The first is that we should support the research in connection with sunflower oil. I take cognizance of that. He also made the point that certain types of alcohol can be made from agricultural waste products if an adequate supply of such waste products is available. In my opinion, all these are matters deserving of consideration. I can only say to the hon. member that as far as my department and I are concerned, we definitely have a positive approach in regard to the research being carried out at Silverton. We fully support those people.

Mr. Chairman, before the hon. the Minister goes further, may I ask him to react to the question put by the hon. member for Albany and myself in connection with a possible investigation into farm labour?

Mr. Chairman, the whole issue of Black labour on farms does not fall under my jurisdiction. It is the concern of the hon. the Minister of Cooperation and Development and the hon. the Minister of Manpower. Unfortunately, therefore, I cannot react to the request of the hon. member in this regard. I urge the hon. member to consult my two colleagues in that regard.

In conclusion, I want to thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. In general I think it has been a positive debate.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.