If the Minister can traverse them by .01 per cent. in any matter of substance, I will withdraw the motion. Deputies will observe that the number of fat cattle does not seem to show the expansion that I would seem to require to sustain the case I have made, but if they will turn to the exports of beef, veal and tinned beef they will find that the patern of our export trade, under the guidance of the inter-Party Government, was changing, and in a desirable direction, because in addition to the fat cattle exported, in each of these half years you find that of beef, veal and tinned beef there were 42,000 cwt. exported in 1948, 56,000 cwt. in 1949, 87,000 cwt. in 1950, 116,000 cwt. in 1951, and 337,000 cwt. in 1952. Does this bear out the conclusion reached in paragraph 17 of the White Paper which I quoted:—
"Again the current output figures for our staple exports rule out the possibility of any large increase in the volume of exports in the near future to bridge the gap."
I invite the Minister to check the figures I have given and to bring them up to date, and I venture to tell the House that the nine months of 1952 will fully confirm the tendency here revealed. I have the July-December figures but the figures cannot yet be computed for the year 1952. They may not speak so eloquently but they do speak eloquently. Our exports of fat cattle from July to December of 1948 were 52,000; 1949, 108,000; 1950, 139,000; 1951, 148,000. In the same period our exports of beef, veal and tinned beef were: 12,000 cwt. in 1948, 112,000 cwt. in 1949, 212,000 cwt. in 1950, 431,000 cwt. in 1951. I invite the Minister to bespeak from the statistics office the most recent figure for the remaining six months of 1952 as from June last to see if they justify the statement:—
"Again the current output figures for our staple exports rule out the possibility of any large increase in the volume of exports in the near future to bridge the gap."
I can call as evidence more arresting statistics still. Omitting pigs and pork, which have become a very valuable export and are growing greater with the passage of every month, and basing my case on cattle only, I direct the attention of the House to the statistics as to the live-stock population available for export in the approximate future, by which I mean the next five years. I group for the purpose of immediate export, that is within the next two years, cattle from two-years-old upwards, and I add to them for the purpose of the longer view the cattle between one year and two years and the calves below one year of age for their export potential in the next five to ten years. In 1947, we had in this country 989,000 cattle other than calves, bulls, milch cows and heifers-in-calf between the ages of two years and upwards. In 1948, we had somewhat over 1,000,000 and in 1949—I can give the figure as an approximate one—1,047,000 cattle; in 1950, we had 1,079,000 and in 1951, 1,132,000 coming within that age category.
In the one-year to two-years-old category—I ask the House very specially to note the figures because they relate to the long term prospect of our industry—in 1947, we had 846,000, and in June, 1948, 742,000. I think these figures relate to June, but I cannot be perfectly certain. They may relate to the January census, but the figures are for the same date in every year, whether in June or January. In 1949, we had 804,000; in 1950, 912,000; in 1951, 974,000, and in 1952, 968,000. Let me further direct the attention of the House to the statistical situation in regard to calves. I have mentioned here before that there is a rough calculation whereby you compare the number of cattle under one year in one year with the numbers of cattle between one year and two years in the subsequent year, thereby discerning the losses the live-stock industry as a whole has experienced in calves, whether through death, slaughter or otherwise. Operating that approximate method of estimation, the loss of calves between 1947 and 1948 was 109,000.