Mr. Speaker, with your leave I wish to make the following statement:

It is with profound regret that I have to inform the House that on account of the serious illness of Dr. the Honourable T. E. Dönges his inauguration as State President will not take place on the 31st May, 1967, and that all arrangements in that connection have been cancelled. On behalf of all of us we pray for his speedy recovery.

Senator the Honourable J. F. T. Naudé will, in terms of the provisions of the Constitution Act, officiate as acting State President after 31st May, 1967.

Sir, we on this side of the House would like to associate ourselves with the prayer of the hon. the Prime Minister.

Sir, may I refer to the speech of the hon. the Minister of Defence last night in which he made certain statements concerning a speech which I had made earlier in the same evening. According to his Hansard the hon. the Minister said—

He went on to say—

I quote further—

With your permission, Sir, I should like to quote from my unedited Hansard what I said—

My remarks were completely unpremeditated and they were made in a teasing spirit and it was in the same teasing spirit that I saw the Prime Minister respond to my teasing and make me an offer of shares across the floor of the House in that particular company. It was in that spirit that I made those remarks and I feel therefore that there is no need whatsoever for me to apologize as requested by the hon. the Minister of Defence. On the other hand, I suggest that in the light of my quotation from my Hansard an apology is due to me by the hon. the Minister of Defence for having misunderstood the spirit of my remarks and the actual remarks that were made. He made a completely unwarranted and unjustified attack upon me. Sir, if I may make this remark in passing, the hon. the Minister, in his short period of office as Minister of Defence, has been quick to learn from the navy of South Africa, in that he used the introduction to my speech as a smokescreen to get away from the criticism that I levelled not only last night but also last year against his Department and himself for the prevailing conditions at Simonstown. Having said this, I ask whether the hon. the Minister will be prepared to state that he recognizes that there is a difference between the duties and responsibilities between the defence and civil sections of the Public Service; secondly, would he be so kind as to consider the payment of compensation and other special allowances to members of the fleet, for example rail concessions and housing allowances; thirdly, whether he will not give his immediate attention to the recreational and sports facilities and amenities which are so badly required in that area. Will he indicate, if they are already under consideration, when they can be expected? And in conclusion may I respectfully ask the hon. the Minister of Defence to give a specific reply to the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Point), and that is in what light he regards the role of a Member of Parliament vis-á-vis himself and his Department.

I shall not comment on the speech of the hon. member for Simonstown, except to say that I do think last night was a lesson. The hon. member for Simonstown has never associated himself with certain hon. members on that side who have a strong tendency to create the wrong impression in this House for outside consumption. It is an ingrained habit in some of the hardened politicians in their ranks. I was sorry to see last night that the hon. member took a hand in practices of this type, but I will accept that in future he will be more careful with his statements.

What was wrong with them?

South Africa has a very great role to play, not only within our own borders but in Africa. Through the expansion of our economy South Africa is a country which may serve as a buffer against the communistic states which not only see Africa as a sponge to absorb their ideologies but, much worse, who see Africa as a sponge to absorb their excess population. I want to suggest that the defence strength of our country will be priority number one for the foreseeable future, and that it cannot be considered, as the hon. member for Houghton is continually implying, that too much is being spent on Defence. This is an absolutely incorrect approach. On the contrary, as our economy develops, our defence strength will have to undergo concomitant development. It is important that the general public should always have the highest regard and respect for the image of the soldier and of the sailor and of the pilot, and in order to achieve this it is of great importance that the morale of our military men, whether the officers, the warrant officers or the other ranks, should be kept high at all times. But I believe that there is one great deficiency, and that is the housing of our forces. I should like to recommend, in view of the fact that Community Development has a vast task to perform in our country, that housing should be provided directly under the Department of Defence, for the simple reason that Community Development has a tremendous deal of work in the private sector, and if the Department of Defence can undertake this housing, it will produce very good results. Housing should not be seen merely as the provision of houses. I believe that with a view to correct town planning and in the light of the proper concept of a happy family, we should appoint town planners to establish military townships, large or small. I believe that if such towns are established there will be camaraderie. The Defence Force frequently has to go out on military exercises, and they are concerned about their families which are left behind. In such a military township they will know that they live with people who know them and that their children will be safe. I believe that the Department will be able to use the young trainees who should like to become artisans in future by giving them the opportunity during their training course, the military course, to commence their apprenticeships, and thus they may be used to build these houses. As I have said, Community Development is a department which is playing a very important role, but I believe the Department of Defence should have its own housing division. As our Defence Force grows, we shall find that whereas to-day almost two-thirds of the members of the Force are married persons, this number will increase. We shall find that the family man is drawn into the Defence Service to an ever-increasing extent. It will be a great service to our country and to our people and I believe that the housing of the military man should be priority number one. This is the least we could do for these men who are prepared to serve their nation on this level.

I want to conclude by thanking the hon. the Minister for the inspired way in which he handles his portfolio. I may testify that people in the Defence Force, in the Air Force and in the Navy are very grateful for his very sincere approach and his organizational qualities. I may testify that within the next few years South Africa will have a Defence Force which will develop to such an extent that every citizen in this country will be proud of it. It is of the utmost importance, because there will be times when there will be an apparent state of peace, but these are the dangerous periods when the newspapers and the liberalists will plead that we should not spend so much on Defence as we are spending at present. We should guard against failure on the part of the general public to appreciate that for the foreseeable future it will be essential to spend on Defence what ought to be spent on it.

The way in which the discussion on this Vote has been conducted was most interesting, as the hon. the Minister also remarked when he expressed his appreciation of the calm and restrained way in which most hon. members discussed the Vote. I believe that the contributions made by some hon. members in the form of directives or requests to the General Staff and to the Minister were less impressive. It is all very well to be theoretically versed in military matters, but the book of the late Field Marshal Rommel would not have enjoyed the world status it did in fact enjoy unless he had first-hand experience and knew what he was talking about.

I was particularly impressed by several hon. members who expressed their appreciation of the visits which were arranged to military installations, and as we as Coloured Representatives could not participate in those visits because we do not belong to the defence group on either side of the House, I think the Minister may accept that if anything of the kind is arranged in future I shall regard myself as the defence group of the Coloured Representatives, because we should also like to know what is going on. With reference to the visit to military installations I should like to make a request to the hon. the Minister, and this is that if possible he should arrange a visit for members of the House of Assembly to the training institution of the S.A. Coloured Corps at Eerste River in the near future. I feel that the establishment of that Corps and its development and the way in which it is being handled is of great interest to South Africa, and also of great interest as regards the relationship between Whites and Coloureds, particularly in the days in which we live. I think it will be a eye-opener to members of the House of Assembly to visit that camp, not only to see what those Coloured soldiers are capable of but also to see how that camp is arranged and maintained, which, of course, is attributable to a large extent to the fact that the commandant of that camp is a man who is not only a most capable person but who is eminently suitable for the purpose for which he was appointed to that post. I hope the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to arrange such a visit in the near future and, it is hoped, while hon. members are still in Cape Town for the Session.

There is another aspect with which I should like to deal, and this is with reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Cradock, who asked that there should be more colourful and attractive uniforms for the school cadets. Speaking from my own experience I may say that the first requirement is a comfortable uniform which is easy to keep clean and practical for this purpose. The colour of the uniform and the fripperies attached to it are not very important. I am thinking of the history of the unification of Italy, particularly on the eve of Garibaldi’s invasion, when the King of Naples came across the crown prince as he was inspecting the uniforms of his various regiments. The King’s words to him were: “Let it be, my son, the uniforms do not matter—they will run anyway.” A uniform is indeed not of much importance, because if one had seen General Dan Pienaar next to an Italian general, one would not have thought the former was a major-general. Last Saturday I had an interesting experience. In a certain suburb of Cape Town a cadet platoon of a certain school marched through the streets to gain publicity for their carnival. A Belgian immigrant stood next to me, and when the boys marched past his words were: “It is a pity that they were never taught how to swing their arms.” Apparently Peninsula schools have cadet parades on Thursdays, and I wonder whether it cannot be arranged that certain schools should have parades on certain days of the week and that non-commissioned officers of the Permanent Force could act as instructors at the various schools.

It remains a fact that the basic training is the parade-ground training, and the experienced non-commissioned officer is of the utmost importance to any military formation or organization. It is generally known that Adolf Hitler’s first great blunder was to allow the British Expeditionary Force to get away across the channel, because those people who got away were the nucleus and the core of the future British Army, because they were then experienced veterans. I feel that it is very important that the training of our cadet corps should be such that when they complete matric and are called up for service in the Commandos or in the Citizen Force in terms of the system which will apply as from next year, they should have a grasp of basic and elementary drilling on the parade-ground as a result of their training under experienced instructors.

Another aspect with which I should like to deal relates to ranks in our Army. In the past number of years we have had the post of Commandant General, with which I am fully in agreement. I feel that the designation is correct for this post, namely the Commandant General of the South African Forces. But in my view it is not a rank but a post which is occupied.

It is a historic rank.

It is a historic post. General Botha and General Piet Joubert are mentioned in the history books, but the posts which they occupied were those of Commandant General of the Transvaal forces. The Free State did not have a Commandant General but in fact a Chief Commandant. At the beginning their formations differed completely from those of the Transvaal.

Then there is another rank in the Army which in the past was actually a post, namely that of Combat General. In the Boer Forces a combat general could hold any rank. He was an officer assigned by his officer in command to take charge of the action or operation to which he was posted. He could have been a commandant. It was in actual fact a post. General De Wet was Chief Commandant of the Free State Forces—later he became General De Wet. “Combat General” was a post. Old Commandant Erasmus in the Warm-bad District, Transvaal, was a combat general on various occasions in his career. He is still alive and may bear witness to this. It was a post which he occupied. This is history. We derived the rank of Commandant from the formations of the Boer Forces which were constituted completely differently and which served under conditions different from those of the regular forces. In our formation and in our designations the rank of commandant is in actual fact a post—we have a commandant of a military establishment or of some operation or other. He may hold any rank. [Interjection.] Yes, it would have been quite a good rank. It would have been a good post for the rank of general, which is quite possible.

Then there is the rank of Field Cornet, which is actually a post which was occupied in peacetime but which the Boer Forces used as a rank. If we study history we will see that in the regular military formations, such as the State Artillery and the Johannesburg Police, the military ranks applied as they applied in our Army until those posts were converted into ranks. Thus we find, for example, that while the rank of Major did not apply in the field forces, in those forces which had no training or instruction—and this is one of the reasons why the Republics lost the war—the commander of the State Artillery was the Free State Major Albrecht. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Potchefstroom would listen, he would know his history somewhat better. I think he can tell me very little about it. The commander of the State Artillery of the Free State was Major Albrecht. The ranks in the Johannesburg Police and in the Transvaal State Artillery were military ranks as we have always known them. It is the rank of Commandant, in particular, which is creating great confusion. Recently I asked a member of the staff of the hon. the Minister: “Who is the Commandant in charge of a certain establishment?” His reply was, “But surely he is then a commandant?” I then said, “No, he may hold some other rank; he may be a Major, he may be a Colonel—for all I know he may be a Major-General or a Lieutenant-General.” [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I accept unequivocally the explanation given by the hon. member for Simonstown. That just proves once again how careful we should be when against the background of questions and earlier insinuations which have been made in debates here, we drag in the names of honourable persons in a way which may create the impression that we have insinuations in mind in doing so. I hope it will also be a lesson to the hon. member. In that spirit I am prepared to leave the matter at that.

The hon. member asked me whether I would not concede that there was a great difference between posts which at present are classified on an equal basis in the Defence Force and in the ordinary Public Service. Yes, I concede that. I concede that, and for that reason I said last night that I was in favour of the services, the Defence Force, the Police and the Prisons Service, getting stronger and better representation on the Public Service Commission. What may flow from that we should see. The hon. member will agree with me that it will be most irresponsible of me to commit myself on this point at this stage, before there has been a proper inquiry into certain posts. I just want to remind him, however, that the conditions of sea-going duty do allow concessions to members of the South African Navy Let me now give him some examples. There is a sea-going allowance only for crews of seagoing ships on commission—R15 per month, all ranks; this also applies when the ship is in harbour. The crew of the ship, all ranks, do not pay for accommodation as long as they are actually serving on board a ship. There is also a diver’s allowance which varies according to depth and duration of a dive. If the hon. member is interested in that, I shall let him have the figures. I do not want to read them now, because they are too lengthy. The commander of a ship, according to circumstances, may grant short periods of shore leave to a maximum of two-thirds of his crew upon the return of a ship to harbour. Thus there are certain principles which are applied. I accept that statement unequivocally. Within our abilities we are accommodating the members of the Navy.

The hon. member also spoke about facilities at Simonstown. According to my information we spend R75,000 a year on improvements in respect of sports facilities at different places. The other day the hon. member spoke to me at Saldanha and said that he was glad to hear that there were such good sports facilities at Saldanha, but when was Simonstown getting its turn? I then told him, “Wait your turn. He should just wait a while. Sooner or later Simonstown will also receive attention. We have to tackle this work systematically. I should like to have R3 million to spend, but then the Opposition would probably be the first people to complain here that the Government was spending too much at a time of inflation.

†Mr. Chairman, there remain a few points raised by hon. members to which I must reply. Firstly, the hon. member for Durban (Point) wanted to know why a White Paper has not been prepared and submitted to hon. members. We did in fact prepare one but due to the lack of time and because of pressure of work, the Commandant-General and myself had no opportunity to approve of the final draft of the White Paper. We have it available and if hon. members are still interested in it, we can make it available later in the Session.

Yes, make it available.

We shall make it available and I hope that next year hon. members will have it in good time. I must also point out that it would have been available had my Vote not come up for discussion earlier than we thought, as hon. members know.

You had better courtmartial the Leader of the House.

It would be rather difficult to courtmartial him. Secondly, the hon. member for Pinelands referred to the need for more airfields to serve our maritime forces, if I understood him correctly. We have Rooikop, Langebaanweg, Ysterplaat, Youngsfield, D. F. Malan, Port Elizabeth, East London and Louis Botha. At this stage we believe them to be adequate. I personally want to tell the hon. member that I would prefer to see a substitute eventually for Ysterplaat, but that would cost a considerable amount and I do not feel that I can make any promises as far as that is concerned at this stage.

Is it going to George?

One of these days there will be one at George as well. I hope that the hon. member will spend his holidays there.

*The hon. member for Waterkloof pleaded for more practice in marksmanship. I agree with him. I may just inform him that the Commandant-General has already issued instructions to the effect that we should do more to learn to shoot. I think it is sufficient that he knows that we agree with him on this point.

What about cheaper ammunition?

The hon. member talks about cheaper ammunition at a time when prices are rising. The hon. member for Potchefstroom asked for exercises in areas which are similar to the conditions prevailing along our borders. I may give the hon. member the assurance that this is happening not only in theory but also in practice. Here I have a letter which I recently received from the constituency of the hon. member for Waterberg, and which I should like to read. One of the leading persons there wrote as follows (translation.)—

I think this is a sufficient reply to the hon. member, to show that in practice, too, we are arranging exercises under conditions which are similar to those he has in mind. These do not include only conventional exercises. They also include unconventional combat exercises.

The hon. member for Cradock referred to cadet uniforms. I agree with him. Let me tell him that we attach a great deal of value to cadets and that I am sorry that there are still schools which have no cadets. However, the whole matter is being investigated. I may tell the hon. member that I have just heard that a good deal of progress has been made in the inquiry into uniforms. I am informed by telex that discussions have already started by direction of the Supreme Command. A coloured sketch has been designed and a memorandum on proposed uniforms has been prepared. There are problems with regard to the cloth which demand negotiation and there are also problems with the caps. It is also the idea that we should discuss this whole matter with the education authorities because we feel that in future we shall have to handle the entire question of cadets in the closest co-operation with the education authorities. The hon. member may rest assured that it is enjoying our attention.

Then the hon. members referred to the importance of proper training for submarine crews. I think it was the hon. member for North Rand in particular who dealt with that. I may tell him that we are already engaged in the necessary planning to be able to provide our submarine crews. Various measures are under consideration with which I should not like to deal now in public. One of these, for example, is the proposed new legislation which will enable us to do better planning in other respects. All I may tell the hon. member is that there is already great enthusiasm among the younger officers. I have no doubt whatsoever that we shall find the crews for the submarines. Then the hon. member emphasized the importance of our navy. I want to agree with him. I just want to quote some figures this afternoon. As regards commercial craft which visited South African harbours, the figure is approximately 700 per month. Approximately 330 commercial craft a month visit Lourenço Marques and Beira, and there are 152 commercial craft that ply around the Cape from East to West and back at any given time. This should emphasize the importance of a stable Southern Africa to the free world. It should also emphasize the importance of the role of the South African Navy. I am pleased to be able to say that this fact was acknowledged at the recent Simonstown talks.

†I want to say that although no new agreement was signed, in connection with Simonstown we came to a new and better understanding with Britain as to different aspects of the agreement.

*I want to make this quite clear. I hope that it will have the result that the free world will come to realize more and more that there is actually only one good sea route for the free world at a time of stress, and that is around the Cape. With a view to that task we should be prepared, not only as regards our navy but as regards our entire Defence Force, and I hope that other countries which do not yet appreciate this will begin to listen to their military leaders, who have long appreciated it.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) asked me one other question. He asked what the position of M.P.s was vis-a-vis the Defence Force. I dealt with that last year. I do not have the slightest objection to M.P.s being interested in the Defence Force. I elicit this interest by arranging visits. I do not have the slightest objection to M.P.s bringing matters of real importance to the attention of the Commandant-General, or to my attention. What I do object to is when M.P.s take note of every petty complaint and undermine the discipline in the Defence Force by doing so. A defence force differs from an ordinary organization. It has to be founded on discipline. For that reason people who are under command in a defence force must be subject in the first place to those in command of them. There are channels through which those grievances can be aired. If a person has gone through all those channels and in his view has still not obtained satisfaction, he may bring it to the attention of the Commandant-General through his M.P., and if that is of no avail, to mine. If this is of no avail, it can be raised in this House. I want to make an urgent appeal to M.P.s not to be misled by petty stories which are spread about from time to time. To substantiate my point I want to refer to a letter which I received some weeks ago from parents here in Cape Town. They are a well-known couple. It reads as follows—

I shall not mention the name. This proves that we should take less notice of the petty complaints which arise from Defence Force ranks from time to time. They are not correct.

And where they are genuine?

I said that where they are genuine and could not be put right through the ordinary channels, they could come to the Commandant-General or to me. I am not prepared to allow the discipline of the Defence Force to be undermined.

There is just one other matter to which I want to reply. This relates to the question of women. The hon. member for North Rand asked me whether we could not employ more women. An inquiry into the employment of women was carried out by a committee of officers. After I had received that report I decided in consultation with the Commandant General that we would not militarize the posts and that we could not establish a women’s corps. I do not think the time for that is ripe. I do not think it would work at this stage. So far we already have 2,266 women in the service of the Defence Force. The problem is of course that they do not stay long. If it is at all possible, we try to employ these women to help alleviate our task.

Then the hon. member mentioned the question of railway concessions to trainees. The General Manager of the South African Railways recently agreed that Railway excursion facilities could be granted to citizen force ballotees undergoing their nine months’ compulsory military training and to gymnasium trainees. Railway concession tariffs for ballotees and gymnasium trainees comprise the following: For single journeys they pay the ordinary single fare for half the mileage plus 20 per cent. For return journeys they pay the ordinary single fare, plus 20 per cent. Negotiations are still in progress with the Railways to extend these facilities to Citizen Force and Commando members and also to Commando ballotees.

Then I was asked a question with regard to increased allowances. I think it was the hon. member for Durban (Point) who asked that question. I should very much like to do that. I have nothing against that, but can we do so at this stage, in view of the present financial position of South Africa, where we have to struggle to keep expenditure in check? That is my reply.

All the other public servants got it.

The Permanent Force also received benefits when the salaries were increased. Surely the hon. member is now speaking of something else. Has he considered all the implications of that? I think we should bide our time and at the appropriate time we should approach the Cabinet, so that they may perhaps say “yes” and not “no”. There is a Treasury to take into account, and there is a country’s finance to take into account.

I just want to conclude by expressing my sincere gratitude. It is now a year that I have been at the head of this Department as Minister. I want to convey my sincere gratitude to the Commandant General, the members of the Supreme Command, the members of the Permanent Force, the Citizen Force and the Commandos. In spite of many problems it has been a year of enjoyment to co-operate with such dedicated people. I think they deserve our gratitude and our esteem.

Vote put and agree to.

Revenue Vote 38,—“Forestry, R1,920,000”. and Loan Vote F,—“Forestry, R12,670,000”.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? In the absence of the hon. member for South Coast, I wish to raise a matter with the hon. the Minister which is of profound importance to the wattle growers in southern Natal and the Southern Midlands. I wish to establish first of all my bona fides in this matter, because I do not want any hon. members on the other side quoting to me the statement made by the Secretary of the Wattle Growers Union, in which he said:

I want to establish with the hon. the Minister that I myself am a wattle grower. I am the president of the Karkloof Wattle Growers Association. I believe I can speak with full authority for the growers in the Southern Midlands and in Southern Natal. I want to say further that on my farm, within 300 yards of my house, there is the site of a wattle plantation from which my grandfather exported the first commercial wattle bark to a tannery in Glasgow, as far back as 1893. I believe that is the date. The invoice was one of the exhibits at the “Royal” Agricultural Show … for many years.

The United Party always leads the way in development.

I believe that I can claim to speak for these people in this matter. I refer to the announcement made by a processing company that two factories were to be closed. Sir, this is a very difficult and a very serious matter for the people whom I represent. Both these factories serve the area in question and there are no other factories there. The surplus manufacturing capacity from the factories is to be moved partly to the Grey-town area where there are already three factories operating, one of them owned by this particular company, and partly to the eastern Transvaal where there is a shortage of capacity at this stage. I want to impress upon this Committee how serious the effect of the closing of these factories will be on the wattle farmers concerned. I would go so far as to say that it would make impossible the continued growing of wattle for what I would estimate as 70 per cent of the people concerned, and the remaining 30 per cent will be so seriously inconvenienced as to make it almost advisable for them to consider selling their Basic Bark Quotas. Sir, in terms of the Wattle Act every grower was registered with the board as a grower and the acreage of wattle was recorded. On that basis a Basic Quota was laid down and all registered growers received an allocation and that then constituted their share in the wattle industry, and all surplus plantations were earmarked for elimination. This applied to every single wattle grower on a fair basis and it was accented in good faith by every single grower. Growers have gone to considerable expense to eliminate surplus trees, and believe me it is a very expensive and tedious business indeed. The Wattle Board was constituted to administer the Act. It is composed of growers and processers and it has always acted as the mouthpiece of the industry in negotiations with the hon. the Minister. This Board has the prime responsibility of regulating the wattle industry, subject naturally to the powers the Minister has in terms of the Act. It is specifically for this reason that I want to raise this matter with the hon. the Minister to give him the opportunity to-day to tell the Committee what steps he has taken in the matter, how he stands in relation to the Board and how he sees his position in a matter of this kind where a single processer by unilateral action has upset the whole basis on which the industry is founded, by rendering the basic quotas of large numbers of growers in effect null and void or of no practical use, forcing them to sell their Basic Quotas on a market in which there is absolutely no demand at all. This Basic Quota has a price fixed by the Board. There are specific amounts of Quota beyond which various purchasers cannot go and the market to-day for Basic Bark Quota is flooded. There are no buyers. There is surplus bark quota offering right at this moment. Sir, the Board is meeting on the 18th May and my association has been called to give evidence before that date. I am certain that the Board will consider this matter very fully and make recommendations to the Minister. and I do not seriously expect the Minister to commit himself here this afternoon. That is not the purpose of my speech; I do not expect him either to take sides or to commit himself in support of any action which the Board may take or against it, but as Minister of Forestry in terms of the Act, he occupies a very special position in relation to the wattle industry. I do however ask two things: Firstly, will the Minister confirm that he has the power to vary or alter the conditions of any permit issued to a processer for the manufacture of wattle extract? Does he have the power to amend the permit to coincide with what he. on the advice of the Board, considers to be in the best interests of the wattle industry? Sir, that is a very far-reaching provision in the Act; it is stated that the Minister may vary or amend the conditions of a permit. I understood that there might be a little doubt in the Minister’s mind as to whether in fact he has the full power in terms of those words in the Act. I would be interested to know whether he is satisfied that he has the power to act in this case. Secondly, will the hon. the Minister consider firstly the interests of the growers when he takes any decision he may have to take, because the growers’ Bark Quota in gross was what constituted the allocation of the extract quota to the factories concerned, subject, of course, to the fact that their capacity was utilized to the full. The growers have a very special part to play in this and I would ask the hon. the Minister to consider very carefully indeed the position of the grower and the grower’s quota, and I would ask him. when the Wattle Board reports, to look at this from the point of view of the growers because the growers’ quota in gross made up originally the amount of wattle bark supplied to a factory and the extract quota allocation to that factory. Sir, I ask this because I believe that there is a very dangerous precedent being created here should these factories be allowed to close down, because in future, for economic reasons, a processer may close down any factory and move its manufacturing capacity to any site which will be to the maximum advantage of the processer—and this is what perturbs me—because it may at the same time lead to the maximum disadvantage of the grower in terms of rail facilities and in terms of the situation of the factory. Let us take a practical example. What would happen if the factory in the Transvaal were to be closed down because of economic reasons? The growers in the Transvaal would be seriously prejudiced but it might be justified from the point of view of a processer who was rationalizing his production facilities. Sir, I believe that the Minister must be prepared to take the most drastic steps, if necessary, acting on the advice of his Board, because the very livelihood of very many hundreds of people is concerned and very seriously concerned.

That leads me to the second point I wish to make. It seems to me that the Department of Forestry has not yet considered the introduction of the sort of extension service to farmers that is undertaken by, for instance, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services where funds are made available to farmers by way of subsidy for the erection of dipping tanks, silos and drinking troughs to enable them to farm more effectively and more efficiently. Sir, in a case like this where the whole of the wattle industry is literally reeling to-day, where they have to undertake the elimination of 50 per cent of their total acreage in terms of the rationalization taking place in the industry, it does seem to me that the Minister and the Forestry Department might well be able to make available loans to those farmers at a reasonable rate of interest to enable them to eliminate those trees and to switch to some other kind of forest activity. Sir, to eliminate a wattle plantation is a very, very expensive task indeed. You have to fell the trees; you can sell them and make a profit on that but there is the continued re-growth of wattle and continual attention has to be given year after year to the elimination of young wattle trees growing up from seed. This is something which I believe is putting off many wattle growers who would otherwise have gone much further in rationalizing their production than they have up to the present moment. The question of the utilization of the area in which the wattle plantation stands, is something which is in the mind of every single wattle grower. Anybody who has tried to eliminate a wattle plantation knows how difficult it is to suppress the re-growth. You may think that you can fell the trees and burn them and plant grass or some other kind of crop, but it is expensive and it is not possible to recoup that money easily by means of a cash crop, and you have the continual re-growth to contend with. One of the easiest ways of doing it is by planting another sort of tree, either saligna or nine or something else, on that ground. I believe that the Minister and his Department could play a very big part in encouraging the reafforestation of these areas, and in fact the afforestation of fresh areas of our country which could be very beneficially used, by making some kind of assistance available to the genuine timber farmer at a reasonable rate of interest. In Natal there are vast areas of land, sour veld, which could be very well put under trees, but the capital cost is such that it deters the ordinary citizen from undertaking the planting of trees on a large scale. That is the reason why big companies have entered this field. That is why the small farmer to-day is in danger of being eliminated, because he cannot plant trees on a long-term rotation scheme. I believe that this is an unhealthy aspect of the industry, because the big company is taking far too large a share in the planting of trees and the ordinary farmer, to whom a forestry undertaking could be a source of stability, is unable to undertake the work. When I see the example of a Department like Agricultural Technical Services, I wonder whether the Minister will not consider very sympathetically taking the necessary steps to approach the Cabinet and getting the necessary authority to allow his Department to investigate areas for which farmers apply, and to control it and to make sure that it is run on a business basis. Because there is no question about it but that the supply of timber in our country is something which is very important indeed. We passed a Bill the other day which set standards for the S.A.B.S. in regard to timber and other things, and we can save ourselves a considerable amount of foreign exchange by encouraging the further planting of timber and by expanding the opportunities for making paper and pulp in this country, for which there will be a great demand. The potential demand for paper is increasing every year right throughout the world. I think that with a long-term view the Forestry Department could very well make out a case to the Cabinet for loans to be made to the individual farmers who wish to establish themselves as timber growers on a reasonably large scale to give them a reasonable turnover.

The hon. member for Mooi River spoke more particularly on the wattle industry. We realize that the wattle industry has problems; there is over-production and a market which is collapsing. One wonders whether the solution to their problems is not to be found in more research or other uses, as the hon. member also said. The Department is now paying an increased grant to the wattle industry for research, in the same proportion as for other branches of forestry, and I think it is along these lines that one should seek the solution, namely to manufacture other products. I also want to support the hon. member in what he said with regard to replanting with other types of trees. I think there are certainly possibilities in that direction, and they should be investigated. But I am also quite convinced that the Department of Forestry will render all possible assistance. I should like to refer to the annual report of the Department of Forestry. It may be a bit old, but there are probably good reasons for that. In the report we find a good deal of interesting information. I was particularly impressed by the good work which is being done in connection with forestry research, for example tree breeding, and the many other branches which are mentioned. There is mention of the multiple activities of the Department of Forestry. I also see that there are schemes for planting ornamental trees by the roadside, but it appears to me as though it is only the Free State which benefits from this. Planting of ornamental trees, the establishment of resting places by the roadside and the establishment of rest camps and picnic spots at our dam sites are matters in which the Department of Forestry could take much more interest. I am particularly pleased to notice such good co-operation with the Department of Tourism. I presume it is because the two now come under one Minister that there is such good co-operation. For example, Forestry donates land to the National Parks Board. I just want to mention the development of the sea-coast reserves along the Tsitsikama coast, and adjoining it, the Tsitsikama Forest Reserve. These two go together very well and will do a great deal to promote tourism. Roads through our forests, so that people may see what is going on, picnic sites where they may stop and perhaps light a fire without the danger of starting a forest fire, will open our forests to the public and will foster more appreciation of those forests.

In recent years the timber industry has become a tremendously important industry. If we consider that in 1962 130,000 people were dependent on forestry, and we compare that with mining, in respect of which the figure was 600,000. we get an idea of the scope of the forestry industry. The gross value of forest products is R260 million, and there are investments of more than R400 million in forestry. That gives us an idea of how important the forestry industry has become in the past few years. In 1961 8.3 million cubic feet of wood was cut. This increased to 20 million cubic feet in 1966, i.e. an increase of 140 per cent. Other wood products showed a similar increase. We notice that paper and pulp increased from 230,000 tons to 500,000 tons, an increase of more than 100 per cent. On the other hand we also see the Estimates made by the Department of Forestry with regard to our wood industry, and then one becomes rather perturbed about the large increases in wood production, but we know that we should never become discouraged about such matters. There are still great possibilities to be developed and many directions which may be investigated.

Now I want to say something about further afforestation in our country. If we look at the previous annual report we notice that the Department states that although afforestation is continuing, the bias of the Department’s activities has shifted towards exploitation. New afforestation is taking place mainly in the Bantu Trust areas. In other words, there is actually no new afforestation in the natural forest regions of the country. The area under afforestation remains more or less constant at plus-minus 500,000 million morgen. But now I see in the report that there are still 140,000 acres of State-owned land which is suitable for forestry. I presume that for a large part that land is not suitable for agriculture, and we cannot let such land lie unexploited. We have to do something with it, and since we already have a great industry with great capital investments, it is essential that we keep our sawmills going, for example. Of those 140,000 acres, 20,000 are situated in the Cape Midlands, from Tsitsikamma to George. That region is most suitable for good timber, pinus radiata, pinaster, elliottii and taeda. These types do not grow in the northern regions, and they yield very good timber. It must be almost impossible to produce too much of that good type of timber. If we could therefore convert our softwood into other products, for example pulp and board products, we would still have to produce the good types of timber in the suitable areas. For that reason I appeal to the Minister to continue afforestation with hardwood varieties, particularly radiata, in the Cape Midlands. There are the 20,000 morgen to which I referred. Then there are also 11,000 morgen of gum trees. The gums were originally planted for fire strips, but it has now been found that these are no longer necessary and that wood is of an inferior quality. I therefore want to ask that it should be considered replacing the fire strips with hard pinewood. I think we should continue operating the industries we have started and in this way we shall utilize that land which will otherwise be lost to us.

Mr. Chairman, it is certainly a fact that the Department of Forestry fulfils a most important function and role in the national economy. We are very grateful for the research which is being undertaken with regard to growing, processing, utilizing and exploiting wood in our country—this increases the possibilities of the role to be played by the wood industry in our country.

There is another very important problem which is encountered constantly by the Department of Forestry, and at the moment they are trying to meet it, namely to bring the production and the demand into line. It has been found that there is an increase of 9 per cent a year in the supply of timber for construction purposes. On the other hand the demand for construction timber has increased by only 2 per cent a year. In contrast with this it has also been found that there is a shortage of wood for pulping purposes. Now plans have to be devised to put better and less wood into the construction timber market and also more wood into the pulping market. According to newspaper reports the annual demand for pulping purposes of SAPPI alone is 55 million cubic feet, of which the State forests provide only 16 million cubic feet. The balance of 39 million cubic feet must then be supplied by the private sector. From newspaper reports it also appears that Anglo-American Corporation is considering the establishment of a large pulping plant in Natal. This will mean that there will be an even greater demand for wood for pulping purposes.

But apart from the existing shortage of pulping wood there is the decrease in the wattle production. This is the case to such an extent that it will also mean that the shortage of pulping wood will increase continually. Initially the area under wattle forest totalled 425,000 morgen, whereas at the moment it is approximately 320,000 morgen. Apparently the area under wattle afforestation will ultimately be stabilized at approximately 225,000 morgen. Wattle planting cannot be profitable if it is done purely for pulping purposes. It must be co-ordinated. Wattle planting for wattle bark, one would say, should be coordinated with wood for pulping purposes; otherwise it can no longer be profitable. While he was still the Minister, Senator P. O. Sauer appointed a committee to inquire into the potential production and utilization of wood in South Africa. This prognosis report revealed that South Africa would be able to meet its wood requirements up to the year 2000, but not beyond that. Since then a great pulping plant has been established in the Eastern Transvaal, amongst others.

To counter the over-production of construction timber and the shortage of pulping wood, the Minister and his Department have produced these new grading specifications in respect of construction timber. This will mean that poor quality timber will be forced off the market and that less timber will be available for the construction timber market while more wood will be available for pulping purposes. Then we shall not only market better timber, but we shall also regulate the market by means of these new grading measures.

Then I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister could not consider having the Department inquire into further reducing the marketing of sawlogs, in order that we may have more wood for pulping purposes. The classification of sawlogs should be changed so that instead of the present utilization of 5-inch thin-end diameter and lengths of 6 feet and longer, we shall, for example, market a 7-inch thin-end diameter and lengths of 10 feet and longer for the construction timber market. This will also contribute towards less wood becoming available where we have an over-production and more wood becoming available where we have shortages.

Now I want to plead that bona fide farmers should, for example, concentrate more on afforesting those areas of their farms which are absolutely unsuitable for agriculture or which have a marginal agricultural value, or land which cannot be reclaimed at all for growing agricultural crops. The advantage of growing wood varieties such as pines and gums for pulping purposes is that the rotation period is from 11 to 15 years, whereas that in respect of construction timber and other purposes is 35 to 40 years. Then there is also a saving in costs. The necessity for pruning twice is eliminated and also the necessity for regular thinning of stands, by which the poorest trees are removed. Farmers may therefore exploit the poorest areas of their farms. I want to say once again, however, that wood growers should be warned—and even prohibited—not to undertake afforestation on sponges or on good agricultural land. Problems will in fact arise if small growers start afforestation for marketing purposes. Amongst other things, they may fall victim to the large buyers. They may perhaps be exploited. The solution to this is that farmers can organize themselves into co-operatives which will thus serve the purpose of handling the interests of the group. This places them in a much stronger position of negotiation vis-á-vis the large buyers. As regards the effect of afforestation on water supplies, I just want to mention for interest’s sake that during the Sixth World Forestry Conference, which was held in Madrid in 1966, two papers were read by two prominent hydrological research workers. They emphasize the fact that where regions are not afforested, the land is subject to soil erosion and as a result dams become silted up rapidly and unnecessarily. It was found that where there are forests to check storm water, the water is absorbed by the soil. It then follows the root channels, and thus the water eventually reaches the rivers and the dams. We have an example in the North-Eastern Transvaal where there are large plantations and where we find crystal clear water in the rivers and the dams. It will therefore also be a pity, considering the millions of rands which are being spent on the construction of the Vanderkloof and the Hendrik Verwoerd Dams, if we neglect the afforestation of the mountain peaks, slopes and ravines with pines and gums, which have become part and parcel of forestry in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. I should like to associate myself with the plea made by the hon. member for increased planting of trees by private farmers. I have already mentioned that this is something to which we must give attention. I do not want it to be thought that this is something which must be entered upon lightly, because once a slope has been planted with trees it is almost impossible to get rid of the trees. The consequence of taking trees out of an area such as that, is the most shocking erosion you have ever seen. I believe that this is something which must be planned very carefully indeed. I should like to see extension among farmers adopted as a policy and that more planning services be made available to farmers, particularly in regard to their water supplies and the effect on their water supplies. I wonder whether the Minister would not like to give us an interim report on the committee appointed to go into the effects of afforestation on water supplies. The hon. the Minister announced this in this debate last year, and we are very interested to find out how far the committee has gone and what, if any, practical conclusions they have reached.

I wish to refer to a statement in the report of the Department of Forestry, on page 11, section IV—

I see that my hon. colleague for Vryheid is smiling. I wish to ask the hon. the Minister of Forestry how he sees the future of the area between the St. Lucia Lake and the sea, a region known as the Eastern Shores. I believe that I am correct in saying that it is owned by the Department of Forestry and a certain area by the Bantu Trust. It was proved by an investigation undertaken by one of the officials of the Natal Parks Board that a considerable amount of fresh water flows into the St. Lucia Lake from that area. It is surprising that this should be the case because the sea is only about 100 yards over the hill. It has been proved that the water flows from that area into the St. Lucia Lake, contributing to the lessening of the salinity which was mentioned by the hon. member for South Coast the other day. [Interjection.]

It plays a very important part in the maintenance of the level of salinity of the St. Lucia Lake. Anybody who has taken a trip to that region will be concerned to see the planting of trees going on in this area and the method by which it is done. What happens is that where there is a wet area a few rows of trees are planted round it to dry out and to firm up that soil. Then further planting takes place until the whole area is narrowed down and the whole area is planted with the result that the water supply from that area which would normally be draining into the St. Lucia Lake, is effectively dried up. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he really believes that the right use is being made of this land and whether this is not perhaps simply being done because the land happens by some accident to be in the possession of the Department of Forestry and whether there is not a considerably better use to which it could be put. The hon. member for Vryheid mentioned the Natal Parks Board. This Minister is the Minister of Tourism. Could this land not be put to a far better use by being employed for tourism or some other purpose rather than allow the planting of trees which is resulting in the drying up of the whole area? The Minister is planting on behalf of the Bantu Trust as well. I believe that an incorrect use is being made of this land. I believe it can be employed in a much more effective manner and with far less serious results for the whole St. Lucia Lake system should this Minister who has only recently taken over the Department of Forestry, give his consideration to this matter. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has ever been there but I would earnestly suggest that he takes a trip there and has a look at it for himself. I do not think that the interested observer can come to any other conclusion.

While I am on that subject I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister the question of the resort at Cape Vidal. This area comes under the control of the Minister of Forestry. It is a lovely place. It is a place where there is some of the best fishing on the whole of the Natal coast and that is saying something. It is an area which I believe this hon. Minister should visit himself. I believe that as Minister of Tourism it would appeal immediately to his eye as a potential tourist centre of the first class. What has happened is this. I believe that, subject to the authority of the local forester, people have been camping at Cape Vidal, sites have been allocated and an eyesore is developing because there are no facilities. There is no water. [Interjection.] It is under the control of the Department of Forestry. If it were under the control of the Parks Board perhaps the position might be different.

The point I want to make is that this should be a tourist resort of major importance. Conditions to-day are very unpleasant. There are only two wooden toilets. There are 32 camp sites and I think the number is going to be increased to 50. There is no fresh water. This is something which I think the hon. the Minister should take cognizance of as to whether he is now going to embark upon a parks board within the Department of Forestry to control areas such as this and whether he would be prepared to supply fresh water and license people going there and control the area in the way it ought to be controlled and allow it to develop in the way it ought to be allowed to develop as a major tourist attraction. I would be interested to know how the Department feels about it and whether it has anything in mind in regard to the future of this area. Some 2,800 morgen have already been handed over to the Parks Board, namely the marshy area at Sordwana.

It might well be that a future use of this area, looked at from a broader point of view, could be for the purposes of tourism. I am speaking particularly of the Cape Vidal area. I think the hon. the Minister should go there himself. I seriously suggest to the hon. the Minister that if he has not been there—I do not know whether he has—he should go there himself to see the place. It is a magnificent spot. The hon. member for Vryheid has been there, I am quite sure. Magnificent fish have been caught there. It is a wonderful place for fishing. It makes the hon. member for Klip-river’s mouth water, I know, but it is something to which the hon. the Minister should give his attention.

There is one other matter I should like to raise. On page 38 of the annual report of the Department of Forestry, it is stated—

I should like to know whether any positive conclusions have been reached in this regard. I know the resin tapping industry is of considerable importance in the southern states of the United States of America. I wonder how far we have gone and whether any further investigations have been made. I shall be very interested to know what conclusions have been reached. The report goes on to say—

Perhaps we should hear some more from the hon. the Minister in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, forestry plays a very important part in the Nelspruit constituency. In fact, it is so important that I am considering telling the Minister that it is time the development of forestry in the Nelspruit constituency was retarded somewhat, in so far as it is in the hands of the Department itself. The development of forestry has widespread repercussions. One of the most important was referred to by the hon. members for Hercules and Mooi River. This is namely the question of its influence on the natural flow-off of our streams. I should just like to deal with this for a few moments. I am speaking of the region north of Wit River, between Wit River and Sabie, where vast areas are afforested by private concerns and by the State. I have personally checked the records of the flow of the river. These developments date from the early twenties. I found that in a dry year one may find the situation that for every one per cent of the surface which is afforested, there is a loss of water flow-off of one per cent. I may assure the hon. member for Hercules that the streams in that region were clear long before forests were planted there. Our natural vegetation there is such that we are fortunate in not getting tea water from our mountains, as is the case in the South-Western Cape. They were very clear streams long before there was any forestry. Now there is the adverse influence on those water supplies. I do not think we should be unrealistic when we consider this matter. I have received many representations as a result of the important part irrigation plays in the low-lying valleys there, to the effect that this matter should enjoy the serious attention of the State. I am glad that the various commissions have been appointed to go into this aspect. I want to make the statement that it will be no use speaking of “sponges”. As far as I am concerned, a sponge in the entire catchment area. In future there should therefore be proper investigation, very thorough planning in respect of what percentage of every farm in the higher regions, where the rainfall is also higher, can be afforested. We are particularly concerned about gum trees, but unfortunately there are also the other varieties which in my view play an important part. I think the officials of the Department are aware of these facts, and if we visit the older pine forests we will find that there is a layer of needles from 18 inches to 2 feet thick. Our problem arises from the fact that the first rains after every summer are absorbed completely because the needles have become so dry. The rain is absorbed in the thick layer of needles which collects under the trees. This has an enormous influence on the flow-off. There are certain minor advantages attached to it, but in my considered opinion this point should certainly be taken into consideration. We shall have to lay down priorities. I do not think we can prescribe to our people where they may or may not plant trees. Unfortunately there is the tendency at the moment that farmers in good grazing regions, which may perhaps also be suitable for agronomy, change to forestry. They maintain that in the long run the risk involved in forestry is smaller and the yield from forestry larger than in respect of stock-breeding. These are all aspects which should be borne in mind.

I want to leave the question of the influence of afforestation on water flow-off and just refer to the utilization of forests in general and to the wood-pulping mill which has been established at Ngodwana. I think we have reached the stage where if it had not been for the consumption in the wood-pulping mills, we would have had a surplus in many respects as regards the supply of wood products in this country. It is certainly true that we are now receiving complaints from our box-wood manufacturers that there is no longer a market for their products. We are already experiencing this problem in connection with our construction timber. I hope that when the measures which will be taken are implemented, for example the standardization of our timber under the Bureau of Standards, it will have the result that we will have a larger consumption of our timber. I want to emphasize, however, that there is the tendency in this country to attach a higher value to something which comes from abroad. It is a great pity that we shall perhaps have to take drastic steps to protect our own industry and to bring it to the attention of the buying public that as far as forestry and in particular timber are concerned. a product is yielded of a quality equal to the best we could import from abroad. Unfortunately we find, for instance, that when architects make specifications for building houses they specify Oregon Pine, for example. We should therefore consider educating the people who are responsible for planning buildings to appreciate that in South Africa products of equal value are produced. It is a great pity that we still encounter this phenomenon.

I also want to refer to wood produce imports from the former Protectorates, the adjoining territories, and also to the development in our own Bantu areas, where afforestation is planned. We already have the position that we are experiencing a considerable glut on the various levels of our own market. I therefore think we should consider protecting our own forestry industry. Here we have the position that we expect timber of certain standards from our sawmills. We also have the position that our Department of Labour requires that certain wages should be paid. We have the further factor that our land prices are considerably higher than in Swaziland, for example. If there is unbridled development in Swaziland in respect of afforestation and they can market their wood freely in South Africa, we shall find that there will be unfair and inequitable competition. I want to ask—and I have already brought this to the attention of the Department—that this matter should be very seriously investigated to see whether we cannot protect our own people where they are entitled to such protection.

Then I want to refer very briefly to certain employees of the Department of Forestry in my constituency. I want to express my gratitude for the fact that in Nelspruit the building of houses for the sawmill workers of the State sawmill has commenced. I just want to point out that after the recent rain in particular the old houses which are still occupied are in a very poor condition. I want to make an appeal to the Minister. I know that this has been provided for in the Estimates, but the building is making very slow progress. One of the people told me that the Public Service is like a jellyfish. If one prods it, it quivers slightly, and then lapses into immobility again. I do not know whether it is all that bad. In this country we can speak with confidence of the Public Service. But there is also the fact that they cannot raise unlimited funds. I want to make a very strong plea that they should apply some oil to the gears which have become rusted in this regard, namely as regards housing the sawmill workers, and should see to it that the jellyfish does not become absolutely motionless. I think it is important that all aspects of this matter should receive attention.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I must say that it is quite new to me to have such a quiet and friendly debate on a Vote handled by me. It came to me as such a pleasant surprise that I am almost at a loss for words. I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) will appreciate that.

I thought you were lost in the woods.

Sir, discussions which I have had with hon. members on both sides of the House in regard to forestry matters have made me realize that when they approach the problems of forestry they do so objectively in the knowledge that this is an industry which affects the lives of so many people.

The hon. member for Mooirivier talked about the problems connected with wattle production. I have had many discussions with him and with the hon. member for South Coast, and I realized right from the beginning that when it came to the wattle industry they could tell me in five minutes what I have not learned so far as Minister. I have always listened to them as authorities on the subject, and that is why when this matter of the Natal Tanning Extract Company came before me I had no hesitation not only to consulting those two hon. members but also hon. members on this side of the House, like the hon. member for Vryheid. Let me make this quite clear right at the beginning. When the managerial people of the N.T.E. came to see me, the purpose of their visit was not to get my immediate support and sympathy; they made that quite clear at the beginning. In fact they themselves said that the idea of their visit was to inform me, before this matter was published in the Press, what their plans were. I listened to them with interest. They readily accepted that I intended conveying this information to the hon. member for South Coast, the hon. member for Mooi-river and the hon. member for Vryheid and the other members on this side who were interested in the wattle industry. Let me make it quite clear that the N.T.E. approach was the correct approach and that I have no criticism of their attitude. I might also add that since then I have been able to study this problem more deeply. I have read the reports on this matter and I agree that it is not just a simple matter of a firm deciding to transfer quotas or to close down its factory. After all, the whole basis of the establishment of quotas and of restrictive licensing was to help the industry as a whole. The hon. member is quite correct in saying that the grower has a very big stake in the whole system which has been evolved. I fully understand the hon. member’s approach. I have read the reports and I have read a summary which was given to me and which conveyed the growers’ point of view. I also know what the view of the N.T.E. is. Of course, as the hon. member has mentioned, the wattle industry board is the authority upon which the Minister relies for his information. As soon as I discussed these developments with my Department, which was well informed, I wrote to the chairman of the Wattle Board, who is a departmental official, and said that I wanted this matter fully investigated from every point of view; that I wanted to know what the legal position was; how I stood and how the board stood. I said that I did not want a majority report but that I wanted to hear the views of the growers, the views of the extract company and any other objective view that was available to the board. I am still awaiting the board’s report. I may say to the hon. member for Mooirivier, who dealt with the legal position, that I gather from my Department—I will read it out to the hon. member—“that the Minister can lay down and change the conditions attaching to the permits. There is doubt whether the Minister can do so retrospectively. The Minister has the power, however, to change the method of manufacturing or sales quotas of extract factories, which gives the Minister a weapon should he need it to take certain action he might contemplate.” Actually the position is very difficult. The Minister has not got legal power to act retrospectively. He may have to face the facts as he finds them; he cannot change them just because he wishes to do so, and I am sure that there is nobody in this House who would want the Minister to have the power to change a situation which has developed and been accepted over the years. I am still confident that just as the wattle industry in the past has overcome even more serious problems, so it will eventually overcome this one too by mutual arrangement. I do not want to add much to that. I do not regard this matter as sub judice, but I do regard it as a matter on which I should not at this stage express any views until I have received the report from the Wattle Board. I should like to add, however, that I have appreciated the helpful spirit displayed by hon. members on both sides of the House in drawing my attention to the problem which has arisen because of the notice given by the N.T.E. company as to its future intentions.

The next matter which the hon. member for Mooirivier raised was the question of the extension services of the Forestry Department. If I understood him correctly he had in mind extension services in the form of loan funds and subsidies.

And advice.

As far as advice is concerned, the Department already has the necessary facilities to give advice. I do not say that the service is as intensive as it is in the case of agricultural crops and cattle, but the Department of Forestry does have an extension service. Possibly it could be applied more intensively.

Then we come to the financial aspect and in this regard I would say to the hon. member that there is a committee which is investigating the question of private forestry as against forestry undertaken by companies with great financial resources. One of the points they are considering is ways and means of making it possible for the small private planter to carry on his activities without being swallowed up by the big concerns. I think the hon. member will appreciate that there is no system in our economy that can, by placing power in the hands of the Minister, enable the situation to be approached directly. The only way one can deal with it is by the indirect approach, by giving the man assistance to stay on the land and to help him to build up a viable unit of his own, as a small farmer. That report will be submitted in due course. I have had discussions with officials of the Department to find out how far we have progressed, because I realize that it is something which needs the attention of the Minister and the Department.

As far as forestry is concerned, I am quite happy that it has a great future. In fact, I do not think people outside appreciate to what extent timber is being used to-day. I was amazed when I learnt of the uses made of timber in South Africa to-day. I asked the Department to prepare some information for me and this is what they have given me. In regard to structural timber alone, they consider that the amount of foreign currency saved because we do not have to rely on imports is about R20 million a year. There is a fantastic use of box timber for agricultural purposes, and they put that down at R5 million a year. Then there are mine props. I did not realize how much timber the mines used, but the Department tells me that 55,000 truck-loads of mine props are sold every year. Then poles are treated to be used as telephone poles and for electrical transmission, and that amounts to R5 million per annum. Then there is the chemical utilization of timber, hardboard and chipboard, and 50 per cent of this production is exported, which shows the efficiency of that industry. The reasonable prices at which they can buy the raw material, makes it possible for them to export 50 per cent of their production. The hon. member also mentioned the pulp industry. The production is 560,000 tons just for the pulp industry. That was something I could never have imagined previously. It represents about 84.5 per cent of our total consumption. Besides that, there is rayon pulp, for which 28 million cubic feet of timer per annum is used and R16 million per annum is received from the exports of rayon pulp. The hon. member for Hercules mentioned that there seemed to be a falling off in the use of structural timber because of substitutes. That is quite right. It may be that we should consider increasing the specification of the diameter from 5 inches to 7 inches, and the length from 6 feet to 10 feet. That is also completely in line with our own thoughts, because the Bill that was introduced recently provided standards for structural timber in order that South African structural timber should not have the bad name which apparently it got over the last few years. If we therefore insist on a bigger diameter timber, we will probably ensure that better wood is used for structural purposes. But the amazing thing is that the farmer will still be able to dispose of timber under that diameter because the pulp industry is absorbing more and more timber every year. The hon. member referred to a pulp factory which would possibly be erected in Natal. I have had discussions with these people. They are in the process of investigating the matter, but they have already gone far in their investigations and I hope that in the near future we will hear that they are definitely establishing a factory there.

I might tell the hon. member for Humans-dorp that recently I got a letter advising me that in Knysna area there was to be erected a comparatively small and compact but a sufficiently economic unit, and that I think will also be a means whereby a large amount of timber can be marketed in the area. So I have no misgivings about the fact that there is a demand for timber in South Africa. It is not like the position of the wattle industry where they have had to curtail the production of timber because the market for extract has fallen. The other uses to which timber can be put are steadily increasing and I am quite satisfied that this market shows a great potential.

Some other points were raised, particularly in regard to the effect of afforestation on water supplies. That is also a problem which the Government is investigating. But hon. members must realize that it has many repercussions. The Government cannot just step in and say to a man that he cannot sell his ground, or that this man has to use his ground for agriculture and the other man must use his ground for afforestation. [Interjection.] I know that was done in the sugar industry, but that is the exception. The wine industry may also do it, but that is also an exception. But I would not like to tell the maize farmer that he may or may not grow maize. You will have a revolution in the country. [Interjection.] The wattle farmer is on a voluntary quota system. But this factor is being investigated and I have read a report showing that in some European countries they insist that afforestation can only take place on the slopes which cannot be used for agricultural production. So I do not dismiss it, but I say that before this Government takes a step like that it will have to investigate the position very carefully.

The hon. member for Mooirivier mentioned the position at St. Lucia and in the Zululand area, and he tied it up with tourism. As Minister of Tourism, I in fact recognize that area as having great tourist potential, and one of the few regional offices we are opening will be at Eshowe, for that very purpose, because we recognize that in that area there is a tremendous potential for tourism. Last year the Secretary for Forestry and the Secretary for Tourism and I had almost arranged a trip to that area. Unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond our control, we could not go, but I am certainly going there during the recess. I want to see for myself what there is. I have seen a certain part of that area but I have not gone there expressly to see what potential tourism development can take place there.

With regard to resin, a company has been established. It has taken a bit of time over its investigations. It is a company jointly consisting of a private source and the I.D.C. The note I have here is that this company has finalized its investigations, or is on the point of doing so. But there is apparently a potential form of revenue in the production of resin, because they are processing resin in various countries in the world.

Will you publish the results?

Yes. It is a private company, but as a Forestry Department we are vitally interested and we will naturally publish whatever information we have available.

The hon. member for Humansdorp indicated, quite rightly, that there are other timbers which can be used in South Africa besides wattle. I told him that in fact the demand seems to be for the other uses of timber rather than for wattle extract, and the development seems to be in that direction. I can tell him also that in regard to afforestation 7,000 morgen is being developed each year. It is regarded by the Government as an investment. Besides this, of course, there is the development of private plantations. I also appreciate the point raised by the hon. member in regard to gums used as firebreaks, and I will ask the Department to go into it. But generally we are anxious to increase our gum plantations because there is a demand for gumwood, particularly for furniture. Although I realize he was only referring to firebreaks, I could not agree to his contention if it also involved the replacement of gum plantations. He referred also to tourism. I think I mentioned previously that in State forests, particularly, there is the opportunity of creating attractive amenities for tourists. I mentioned the matter that the hon. member for Hercules raised about structural timber. Finally, the hon. member for Nelspruit also indicated that we might have to direct agriculture when it comes to forestry. He talked about the effect that afforestation has on water supplies. There also a committee is investigating that position because it also means that if the committee finds that there is a definite effect on water supplies because of afforestation in certain water sheds, and the Government decides in principle that action must be taken, then obviously legislation will be needed. He talked about the bigger use of timber as a raw material. I am satisfied that the consumption of timber is growing, particularly with the chemical approach to the fibre that timber contains.

The hon. member talked about the unfair competition from outside areas with our timber industry. I can assure him that I will go into this matter. As he indicated, it may have very wide repercussions.

I think that those are the matters that were raised, and I hope that I have satisfied the hon. members. In any case, if a question has not been answered by me here, when we go through the Hansard we will see that the member concerned is given an answer to the matter raised by him.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 39,—“Tourism, R1,597,000”:

Mr. Chairman, in discussing this Vote we are at some handicap for the reason that the figures produced in the reports which we get, particularly the reports from Satour, are over a year old. They were brought up to date to some extent by an interview with the head of Satour, published in the Press on the 5th of last month. But those figures obviously are not very complete in themselves. Quite rightly they were given by way of a boost to the tourist industry.

This Vote falls very largely into two parts— one dealing with the tourists coming into this country, which falls under Satour very largely, and the other dealing with conditions within the country which fall under the recently formed Hotels Board. I will contend myself with dealing with the first, and in particular the hon. member for Durban (Point) will deal with the second subject. Other hon. members on this side will discuss either of those subjects.

This afternoon we are dealing with an industry which has suddenly become the biggest industry in the world. In the last year 128 million people visited various countries in the world, and it produced an income for those various countries of R9,100 million. This is a colossal figure in itself. We have to ask ourselves what is our share of that; how are we doing? I think that it is time that we did a little stock-taking.

In the last year, that is 1966, we had 257,000 visitors to South Africa. The total amount it was worth to us was about R36 million or R37 million. In considering that, we have to look also at what has been happening in the world in the recent past. In the last six years the number of visitors who have visited the average country has doubled. If we take the South African figures, we get 187,516 visitors in 1960, and in 1966 the figure was 257,000 odd, as I mentioned, which is an increase of 69,492. That represents an increase of 37 per cent. It means that the average country expanded its tourist trade at almost three times that of South Africa. I think that we must take particular note of that. I know that various reasons can be advanced as to why our expansion is not at the same rate as countries in Europe which are close to one another; it is a package deal, it is very easy to travel from one country to another, whilst we have distances counting against us, and that sort of thing. But despite that, I think that we should ask ourselves whether we have made sufficient progress? In addition the important point in the travel business from a national point of view is to get from the incoming tourists the amount, if possible, that the outgoing tourists are spending in other countries, in order to effect a balance of payments. If we look at that from a South African point of view, the prosition is not entirely satisfactory. In 1963 it is calculated—and in this calculation I admit that various assumptions have to be made as to how much the travellers spend—that there was a deficit of nearly R14 million. In 1964 there was a deficit of R19 million, and in 1966, as I said previously, the visitors coming in were worth to us R36-37 million. As regards the outgoing travellers, visiting other countries from the Republic, they spent R54 million outside the country. Now obviously these figures do not take into account the fare paying factor. That is impossible to assess because one does not know how much of that fare really accrues to the Republic and how much accrues outside. Also in considering this matter one must have regard to what has happened over the years since Satour was created. Satour was created some 20 years ago; I think we have its 19th report before us. One has to consider what would have been the natural increase—those people who come to South Africa naturally. I think over the period one could reasonably have expected an increase of, say, 50 per cent. At the time Satour was established, we were getting round about 20,000 to 25,000 visitors from overseas. From this figure I am excluding the neighbouring African territories because the flow of visitors in and out of these territories cancels each other out, roughly speaking. The real test, therefore, is what the number of visitors is from overseas countries. If this number was 25,000 some 19 years ago and assuming there was an increase of 50 per cent we get a figure of 37,500. The figure given for 1966 is 74,000—in other words, approximately double the figure which might have been had there been no effort by Satour and others. But not only Satour undertakes this work. It dies very hard with the S.A. Railway Administration who, before the creation of Satour, used to undertake promotional work in addition to selling travel. Even to-day, I believe, they still continue to a certain extent with promotional work and do not contend themselves with the selling of travel. Our Department of Information does a certain amount of work to promote travel into South Africa—for instance all the literature they are putting out. That may be said to be indirect but some of the money spent by that department must be put down to the furtherance of tourism. Then there are other outside organizations such as the S.A. Foundation and the money spent by it. Some of this money is spent with the objective of increasing the number of people coming to this country and to encourage people to come to this country.

While we have this tremendous effort, we must ask ourselves whether this effort really brings results. We have the S.A. Railways overlapping with Satour to a certain extent. On top of that we have the Department of Tourism. The total amount on the estimates for the Department of Tourism is R1,597,000. If one examines the items one finds the heaviest item to be R138,300 in respect of printing. In respect of films an amount of R26,700 is being provided. This totals up to R165,000. Of the balance of the Vote an amount of R1,228,000 goes to Satour in the form of a grant. Satour too produces films, issues publicity matter, etc. So one asks oneself whether there is the necessary co-ordination and whether or not there is unnecessary overlapping. I say the time has arrived when we should ask ourselves this question. I say this advisedly because I can claim to be the father of Satour. It was by motion in this House, moved by me about 20 years ago, that Satour was brought into being. So, I say we have to ask ourselves this question advisedly—that is, whether or not there is unnecessary overlapping, whether the machinery for tourism does not stand in need of being streamlined. There is a body of opinion outside that Satour as such should be dismantled to-day. The question is being asked whether it is still fulfilling the function for which it was created. Is it delivering the goods? I believe one must give some attention to this. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Von Brandis referred to tourism as being the largest industry in the world to-day, an industry with a turnover of approximately R8 billion. That is so. The hon. member also quoted a fair number of statistics, and towards the end of his speech he put a number of questions to the Minister, to which the Minister will probably reply in due course.

During the discussion of this Vote last year, I expressed certain thoughts in connection with domestic tourism. I said at the time that South Africans should become more travel conscious as far as touring in South Africa herself was concerned—they should get to know their own country better and they should discover new tourist attractions. Our country has many scenic attractions—attractions which thousands of our own people have not yet seen. Even some of our people who have already been overseas have not yet visited all our own scenic attractions. It is a fact, of course, that the unfamiliar and faraway things always have a greater attraction for people—that is why most people visit the old cultural countries of Europe, the East, the U.S.A. and so forth, to fulfil a desire they have had for years. But it costs a lot of money to fulfil that desire. Not every one of us is in the fortunate position to be sent overseas on some business transaction or other. The average South African has to save for a long time before he can take a trip overseas. It is said that South Africans spend money very easily overseas. The general manager of a number of large hotels in Spain, who is also the general manager of a tourist organization, says that South Africans spend as much money as South Americans do when visiting Spain, namely approximately R450 per person, as against the R360 per person spent by North Americans, people who are regarded as wealthy tourists, and the R100 per person spent by visitors from Britain. I merely quote these figures to show that South Africans spend money very easily when they tour overseas. On the other hand, if we limit our travels more to the interior of our country, a large amount in valuable foreign exchange, money which is leaving the country at the moment, will be retained in the country. We can do much more still to encourage our own people first to get to know their own country, to discover it and to learn to appreciate it.

But in addition to the generally known scenic attractions in South Africa, further tourist attractions will have to be opened up and more camping sites will have to be established. Of course, we are glad that there are various organizations which are particularly active in this regard. In this connection, for instance, I have in mind the various Provincial Councils. One also thinks with appreciation of the work being done in this connection by the National Parks Board. Here I also want to refer to the Mineral Springs Board in the Transvaal, an organization which has performed a special function over the past number of years. South Africa is blessed with more tourist attractions and more potential holiday resorts than is generally thought. Let me refer to one aspect only—our mineral hot-water springs. I do not know whether it is generally known, but the Transvaal has 32 such springs, the Cape has 31, Natal has 6, the O.F.S. has 6 and South-West Africa has 24. Each of these hot-water springs has great possibilities and is a potential tourist attraction, simply waiting to be developed. For example, I want to refer to the baths at Aliwal North. I have been told that as many as 300,000 visitors and holidaymakers visited that resort last year.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the Department of Tourism and the Minister on the success they have achieved so far. This is a young Department, which, as we know, was only established in 1963, with the main object of looking after the interests of tourists, both inside and outside the country, and to help Satour to get tourists from overseas. We are able to say now that this Department, this Minister and the various Secretaries have tackled the work in earnest, enthusiastically and conscientiously, in the following spheres: In the first place, the Department started with a comprehensive domestic programme, initially through the agency of the provinces. The Department divided the provinces into tourist regions and it tried to activate the provinces. In that way various regional committees were established. As from 1st May this year the regional committees were placed under the direct control of the Department of Tourism. To my mind that was the right thing to do. The hon. member for Von Brandis also asked in this connection that the Department should show more results. I repeat that it was a step in the right direction that the regional committees were placed under the control of the Department. In that way better control can be exercised, greater co-ordination can be achieved and greater uniformity can be also brought about. Regional offices are being established throughout the country. In the course of the discussion on the previous Vote the hon. the Minister referred in passing to the regional office for tourism which has been opened at Eshowe in Natal.

A second direction in which this Department is working, is in connection with publicity. I do not want to enlarge on that. I just want to refer to the brochures and to a film which is in process of production. In the third place—-this is a very important aspect as far as I am concerned—the Department stimulates the provision of accommodation. We all know that accommodation is an essential and basic requirement for tourism. The host country must have good hotels which are able to meet the needs of the visitors, both the visitor who expects luxuries and the ordinary visitor. There is a shortage of accommodation throughout the world. It is a general phenomenon, even in countries which already have an established tourist industry. In this respect South Africa is rather badly off. The Department of Tourism realized the necessity for good accommodation for tourists at an early stage. That is why the Hotel Board was established as a statutory body. As we know, the Hotel Board is at present carrying out the grading of hotels. We know equally well that this is a task of great magnitude. The Chairman of the Hotel Board, Dr. Wiehahn, said recently that the grading of hotels was ushering in a new era for the hotel industry in this country. He also said that the Hotel Board was not simply making use of overseas methods of grading, but that it had devised its own technique and procedure for carrying out the grading of hotels. It is no use to have large-scale and excellent publicity overseas when South Africa cannot receive the tourists owing to lack of accommodation. But the fact of the matter is that not only the Department of Tourism but also various other bodies have become aware of this shortcoming. An organization such as the Association of Chambers of Commerce is also much interested in this aspect. In the February edition of Handelsmening the following was stated in this connection—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, just to complete the argument I was following, I should like to refer the Minister to a statement made in the last annual report of the Industrial Development Corporation. Under “General” reference is made to tourism. It reads as follows:

Later in the article it says that tourism is “a market in which South Africa should alert to participate”. This is an indication that, whoever is the author of this document, he is not happy that everything is being done that should be done. I asked the Minister whether he has any knowledge that the I.D.C. is now going to put a finger in the pie of the tourist industry. I hope that that is not so. Has he had any talks with them? Are they about to enter that field? It seems strange that in a report of this organization, almost out of the blue under the item “General” specific mention should be made of the tourist industry and what it represents and by implication a criticism of the position that exists in the country to-day in regard to what is being done to encourage visitors to come here and develop the potential of the tourist industry. I do not want to decry in what I have said what Satour has done and what it has achieved. Their publications and the promotional work that has been done are of excellent value. I have no doubt that they have done a great deal to bring tourists to this country. In regard to the report of the Department I think it is a pity that they enunciate this thought. In referring to Satour it says that:

It is referring to the National Parks Board, provincial authorities and other organizations. I think that Satour, although it is concerned with bringing tourists here, should have some concern with the internal situation and what is happening in this country for the reception of the tourist and the development of the tourist potential. In this statement they seem to wash their hands of it and say that they are looking after the overseas and outside visitor. If this is so, it is being done in a most uncoordinated manner. Surely the Ministry of Tourism is responsible for this work with these various organizations mentioned assisting. In another statement a little further on, on page 9, it is stated that:

This is not an adequate explanation as to why chartered services have not developed in this country to the extent that they could develop. The truth of the matter is that the South African Airways is not anxious to see charter services develop. You could develop them within this country and they could also be developed from this country to bring in people. I have a very strong suspicion that the South African Railways is the difficulty, and if they are having difficulties, let us hear about it in the annual report. Why make a vague statement of this nature?

They banned some of those who were operating.

My hon. friend says that they banned some of the chartered services that were actually operating.

Then in the next paragraph there appears the following—-

I would like to ask the Minister to what extent we participate in that. What are we doing; what are our activities in promoting what was termed in 1967 the “International Tourist Year”? I have not seen any great activity in that respect. I may not have the knowledge; it may be taking place outside and therefore we are not aware of it here.

Then in regard to this report generally, in respect of many of the figures given it is not indicated whether they apply to this calendar year; I presume that that is so, but I found some difficulty in aligning some of the figures given in the short tables with the figures given at the end of the report. Then, Sir, to cap it all, the penultimate paragraph of this annual report says—

That is a reference to the finances of Satour; that is the total report on the finances of Satour. I think we are entitled to more than that. We are entitled to the various items of expenditure; we are entitled to know how the money is spent. I think Parliament should know how that money is spent instead of just getting a bald statement as to the total amount that has been spent. Satour receives most of its money from Parliament, if not all, and Parliament should be able to see what the details are. The money may have been very wisely spent. Then I also want to say in regard to the literature, the pamphlets and the brochures sent overseas, that Members of Parliament as such are left in total ignorance as to the contents of these pamphlets and brochures. None of them are ever sent to a Member of Parliament, and I think at least that the names of those who are interested in following the development of tourism might be placed on the mailing list so that they can get these brochures and know what is happening.

Lastly, I would like to suggest to the Minister that he create an annual or a bi-annual conference, in the old days you had a conference held under the Railways. True, it became rather parochial; it was of the parish-pump nature, but to-day there does not seem to be anything like that where you can consult outside opinion. I think you can get the various national bodies, the parks authorities, representatives of the bigger publicity organizations and those few people outside who are interested in introducing visitors to this country, as well as other representative people, together at a conference and consult them and see what they are thinking and what they are doing. It seems to me that there is somewhat of a vacuum to-day. I believe that you should harness every energy, every advantage that you can get, so as to create out of the tourist industry one of the biggest things in South Africa. We talk about having half a million visitors in the 1970s. I believe that if this were tackled properly, if we got down to it and if we got everybody working for it and if we got the whole thing streamlined and organized, half a million could look a very small figure.

I do not want to follow the hon. member for Von Brandis very far in his argument; I merely want to say, in reply to the question which he posed as to whether Satour was actually delivering the goods, that of course it is delivering the goods. That is shown by the statistics recently published on tourism and also by the future expectations of the Department of Tourism and of the South African Tourist Corporation itself. I want to say that now that the outside world is gradually realizing that the Republic of South Africa is not on the verge of a revolution but is the most stable country on the African continent and also the best developed country, we can expect a terrific boom in tourism in South Africa in the next few years. I want to quote a few figures to show what success has been achieved by Satour in the past year. Last year we had a record-breaking tourist season; we had some 257,000 visitors, of whom some 180,000 came from other African countries, including 109,000 from Rhodesia, 34,000 from Zambia and some 28,000 from Mozambique. It is confidently expected that the number of tourists visiting our shores next year, in 1968, will increase to at least 300,000, and it is absolutely necessary, as the hon. member for Von Brandis has pointed out, that we should do everything in our power in future to stimulate the tourist trade, because it is such a valuable foreign exchange earner for this country. Last year, for example, the foreign exchange earned by tourism for South Africa amounted to R80 million. Over the past five years the total number of tourists to South Africa has increased by 50 per cent, which also proves that the efforts made by Satour and recently by the Department of Tourism have yielded excellent results. It is confidently predicted by Mr. Basson, the director of Satour, that this rate of increase will be maintained in the future. In the past five years the number of visitors from Europe, for example, has increased by 200 per cent, which I think is a remarkable achievement. The tourist potential is still largely untapped as far as South Africa is concerned, particularly in the case of tourists from Europe. We even had 13,500 tourists from the United States of America last year, which is also quite a remarkable achievement seeing that America is so far removed from us. It is conservatively estimated that tourists from Europe and the United States of America spend between R30 and R40 a day in South Africa, so you can see, Mr. Chairman, what a vast potential money-spinner tourism is for South Africa.

The boom in international tourism makes it essential therefore that we should plan ahead, and as South Africa has just been discovered as a tourist paradise I want to ask the Minister what definite plans he and his Department have in hand to meet the expected tourist rush of the future. As you know, Sir, we are approaching the era of jumbo jets and supersonic transport, which will deposit, not 40 or 50 or 60 passengers at Jan Smuts Airport from one flight but at least 500 passengers every time a plane touches down at Jan Smuts. With the newly introduced cheap excursion fares from Europe, it is possible that by 1970 our tourist traffic may approach the 500,000 mark a year. What are the Department of Tourism and the S.A. Tourist Corporation doing by way of planning to provide for accommodation and facilities in the future for this bumper tourist trade we are expecting? I know that the S.A. Hotel Board is doing everything possible to get our few hotels of international standing, such as the President Hotel and the new Carlton Hotel in Johannesburg, established, but what else is being done? We would like the hon. the Minister to tell the country what his future plans are to cope with this tourist boom that we are expecting.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to criticize the promotional efforts of the S.A. Tourist Corporation. They maintain nine offices abroad, and I think they have done excellent work. But I have here a big-circulation American magazine, the U.S. News and World Report, in which a long article appeared recently in the issue of April 24, 1967, about where unusual holiday places all over the world are to be found. Sir, which countries are recommended in this article? Not South Africa, but comparatively undeveloped North African countries, such as Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria. There is also a prominent box here in this article in which this question appears—

But not a word about South Africa and its world-famous Kruger National Park. I think everything possible should be done in future to promote South Africa’s tourist trade by getting our promotion people to have similar articles published in prestige publications overseas such as the one I have just mentioned.

In conclusion, I want to refer briefly to the question of hotels and restaurants. In the first place, why do South African hotels and restaurants do so little about advertising our wonderful fruits, vegetables, and fish such as snoek, for example? Thousands of tourists coming to this country are looking for genuine South African foods. Sir, I have found that a bowl of fresh South African fruit is a rarity on our hotel tables. In this connection I want to exclude the Parliamentary restaurant and the Blue Train which are laudable exceptions. What about serving that famous and typical South African delicacy, biltong, in our hotels? I also want to plead with the hon. the Minister that he should ask our South African hoteliers to give their hotels more typical South African names, such as “Sarie Marais”, which we already have in the Free State, “Suikerbossie” and “Hotel Republiek”, which we have in Pretoria. When one considers that there are 25 Queens Hotels, 38 Royal Hotels and 24 Masonic Hotels in South Africa, I think even the Opposition, who are now trying their utmost to improve their image, will agree with me that the re-naming of hotels and a little more originality in future in naming our hotels will not be unwelcome. After all, we are living in the Republican era now.

Finally, I want to say how glad I am to learn from Mr. Malan, the director of the Hotel Board, that a course for Coloured waiters is to be instituted in Cape Town. I want to ask the Hotel Board through the hon. the Minister, whether it would not be possible also to start a training school for Bantu waiters in Johannesburg. I do not say this in any disparaging way but Bantu waiters in general lag very much behind Coloureds and Indians as far as efficiency is concerned. The Indians of course have their own training centre for waiters at the M. L. Sultan College in Durban. I would appreciate it very much if the hon. the Minister could give attention to this matter so as to increase our efficiency in Johannesburg where there are not so many Indians as waiters.

The hon. member for Turffontein has raised some very interesting matters and has covered a very wide field and I am sure he will forgive me if I do not follow him in the limited time at my disposal. The tremendously important role that international tourism has come to play in the economics of almost every country in the world to-day, plus the fact that any investment made by a country designed to increase the flow of tourists over its borders, must obviously pay very handsome dividends in the long run as will be borne out when we look at the following figures. [Interjection.] We find in looking at world tourism that from 1958 to 1963 the world expenditure on international tourism increased by no less than 75 per cent, while during the same period world industrial production rose by only 44 per cent and world trade in manufactured goods only by 45 per cent. This means that the rise in the world tourist expenditure was almost double the average annual growth in world national income. In other words, world tourism grew by 12 per cent, while the world national income grew by only 6 per cent. It is very interesting also to see what the International Union of Tourist Associations have to say about world tourism—

These figures highlight the fact that international tourism has become a very big and lucrative business to-day. There is no doubt that the countries which have been fortunate enough to attract their fair share of these tourists are in a very happy position indeed. The fact that South Africa had 257,000 visitors last year and that we earned approximately R80 million from tourism might look very impressive on paper until we realize that only one in 500 tourists from the West decided to visit South Africa, and only one in three tourists came from outside Africa.

There is no doubt in my mind that South Africa is not capitalizing fully on its very vast tourist potential. I believe if we are to ensure our fair share of this very lucrative tourist trade, then the Government, and in particular the Department of Tourism, will have to adopt a far more dynamic approach to this whole problem. I am very pleased, however, to note that there has been talk of the Government adopting an entirely new approach in regard to attracting tourists to South Africa. We find, for instance, that the Administrator of Natal just a few days ago spoke very optimistically, I believe, of attracting ½ million tourists to South Africa, who would bring in revenue of more than R150 million. In the interests of South Africa we all certainly hope that this very happy position will come about, but I believe that to do this the Government and the Department of Tourism will have to do very much more than they do to-day.

Now I want to raise another matter with the hon. the Minister by suggesting to him that he should explore the possibility of attracting a fair share of the enormous number of world congresses being held to-day. I raise this matter because of the phenomenal growth of the international congress movement throughout the world. We find, for instance, that before the war there were 705 international congresses held. In 1948 this number jumped to 1,200, and in 1965 no fewer than 2,201 international congresses were held in different parts of the world. When we look at the attendance figures of these congresses, they are equally impressive. We find, for instance, that in 1965 2 million people attended international congresses and of these 1.5 million actually crossed international borders, and in travelling alone they spent R250 million or approximately per cent of the total budget of the 100 leading world airlines.

There is no doubt that many countries have been very quick to realize the vast potential of these international congresses. A very good example of this is the case of that small country, Israel. We find that while in 1960 Israel did not have a single world congress held in their country, in 1967 no fewer than 35 congresses were scheduled to be held there. Obviously, to bring this about the Israeli Government had to adopt a very positive approach to this whole question of international tourism and in particular to international congresses. We find that in 1965 the Israeli Government invested R100,000 in subsidies to congress organizations. We find, too, that there must have been an enormous amount of co-operation between the Government, the Tourist Department and the hotel industry, because whereas in 1960 there were 4,500 hotel beds in Israel, in 1967 this figure grew to 9,700.

When we realize that the average international congress delegate spent an average of nine days in Israel, as against the five days normally spent by ordinary tourists, and that each delegate spent an average of R120, we realize that the effort and the investment made by Israel paid very good dividends. I think we all agree that South Africa, with its excellent natural tourist attractions, could be the host country to many of these international congresses. I know that in the past there have been certain very severe problems. To mention just one, there was the question of hotels. But this position has been relieved to a large extent. We know that the Government in conjunction with the Johannesburg City Council, has even underwritten two of the international hotels being built there to-day.

I feel that South Africa is in a position today to extend invitations to important organizations to hold their international congresses in this country. Without being at all parochial, I would suggest that the ideal venue for these congresses would be the City of Johannesburg. First of all, we know that Johannesburg is the international terminal. We know that three international hotels will be sited there, and we also know that to attract these congresses a really modern community hall will have to be built. By that I mean a hall which can seat anything from 150 to 3,000 delegates, because we know that congresses overseas attract this number of delegates. I believe that the Government could do very well by working in conjunction with the Johannesburg City Council in erecting a congress hall of this size. [Time expired.]

I just want to take a matter further, a matter which the hon. member for Turffontein referred to in passing at the end of his speech. He referred to the training of non-Whites in the hotel industry. I want to confine myself specifically to the training of Whites in the hotel industry. As a background I just want to mention what is happening in a country such as Switzerland, a country which is known particularly for the high standards of its hotels. In Lausanne they have a hotel school where they train the youth in all the facets of the hotel industry, from steward to manager. The period of training in this hotel school is 17 months and the training is particularly thorough. Witness the fact that the cost per student for 17 months is R1,700. If that is the position in a country where the hotels are of a high standard, we must ask ourselves what is being done in this country. I may just say in passing that in other countries and big cities such as Cornell in America, as well as in London, courses are being offered at a university or semi-university level. In our country the hotel industry represents a tremendous investment. I want to go so far as to say that the hotel industry in our country represents a greater investment than certain other industries or undertakings for which we are in fact making thorough provision in the form of university courses or courses at technical colleges. Nevertheless we do not at the moment have any co-ordinated training for staff, except as far as the Indian waiters in Natal are concerned. That is why I want to raise a specific plea to the effect that we should as soon as possible, in cooperation with the Hotels Board, see to it that a course is established at at least one centrally situated technical college in regard to the training of Whites in all branches of the hotel industry, but particularly in regard to managerial functions. I am certain that liquor producers, liquor merchants, hotelkeepers and the Hotels Board will most certainly be interested in helping with buildings, equipment and advice in order to ensure the success of such a course.

In addition there is another important reason for my advocating that the people who must take the lead in our hotel industry, namely the Whites, must receive a very intensive and co-ordinated training. This is because the time has come for us to give our hotels in this country a uniquely South African impress. As long as white boys have to go to various countries, such as Switzerland, England and America, for specialized training, we shall never have a South African spirit in our hotel industry in this country. I think the time has come when, if we walk into a three, four or five star hotel in South Africa, we must not merely get the impression that we are walking into a good London hotel. One must get the impression that this is really something which breathes a South African spirit, which presents a picture of the South African nation and the South African way of life. It will be impossible for us to introduce a South African spirit here if we do not have a school or a course which imbues the leaders of the hotel industry with a South African spirit and tradition.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow the hon. member for Kroonstad too far in his plea for better tourist hotels with an Afrikaans atmosphere, etc., in this country. The hon. member drew comparisons with Swiss hotels, and I should just like to say the following. It is not the Swiss hotels which sell Switzerland as a good tourist country. Swiss hotels are clean hotels where one receives good food and good treatment. But further than that they have no character. They do have character as regards their architectural style, cramped up as they are against the Swiss foothills. But apart from that they have as little character as the Dutch hotels have, or any other hotels to which tourists want to go. What a tourist wants, when he is in another country and wants to stay in a hotel, is good food, a good room and good clean treatment. He asks for nothing more. I do not know whether the character of a particular nation is to be found in its hotel industry. I did not find it in Australia, I do not know it in South America, I have never found it anywhere. [Interjections.] I repeat: What the general tourist wants, is a good room—with a bathroom if he can afford it—good food and clean treatment.

However, there are so many other things which these countries can offer and I should just like to discuss this topic with the hon. the Minister. I should just like to say a few words in regard to sub head E of the Vote now under discussion. I see there a nominal provision of R100 for “Research in connection with tourist industry”. I want to suggest that “Research in connection with tourist industry” is something which deals with a product which we have to sell. It is an export. It is one of the best money-spinners. We must not think now that because we had 280,000 tourists in South Africa last year who spent R80 million here that it was all net profit. Many of our own people on the other hand went overseas where they spent money on the same scale. If one deducts the money which they spent on their travel tickets, then one must accent that the balance of their expenditure would have been spent here in South Africa. So it goes with all tourists. Our aim must be to attract more tourists to this country than the number of people who leave the shores of our country. Then it is a product which we are selling. There must be research in respect of those things which induce a tourist to come to a country. What I have in mind here is a small country like Switzerland, a country with lakes, mountains, a winter and a summer climate, and I can visualize what it is that draws tourists to that country. But when I think of a country like Holland, a country which has no winter climate and only a short coastline —a country which has nothing which we have here—then I wonder what it is that attracts the tourists to it. Are you aware that our country has a coastline with a winter and summer climate, such as few other countries in the world have? What are we doing to inform potential tourists throughout the world of what they can enjoy in this country which is not to be found in other countries? There are things in this country which are entirely unique to South Africa. There is the wild life, the various Bantu populations, and everything which goes with that, all of which is unique to the Republic as such.

I am not proceeding from the assumption that these are necessarily the attractions which we must present to tourists throughout the entire world. I want to refer to an aspect of which the hon. the Minister is perhaps aware. I am thinking now of bus tours and their organization. I am thinking of all the places to where such bus tours can be undertaken, all the places where those buses can stop over. I am thinking of co-ordination between the various tourist corporations and organizations, both provincial and national throughout the Republic. It is of particular importance to offer the tourist, while he is still overseas, a bus tour which informs him of the places where the buses are going to have their oversight stops, in which towns, something which has been co-ordinated as part of a large-scale network so that a country-wide tour can be undertaken, as is the case in many other countries. There are wide-awake countries where such tours take place. The visitors sleep over at various towns. Such a service makes it possible for the tourist to travel through the entire country. The tourists can be accommodated at various places and when he has completed his tour he will have seen the entire country.

There are other aspects as well which I want to bring home to the Minister. There are so many countries where certain newspapers arrange global tours in conjunction with certain airlines. I know for example that the Toronto Globe and Mail has for years now been arranging photographic tours in conjunction with the B.O.A.C. to Kenya. It began on a small scale only, but is at present so popular that they undertake the tours as often as the people can be accommodated in Kenya. The visits are offered as photographic tours, not as hunting trips. It is in fact a hunt with the camera. This project has assumed such proportions that when I inquired from one of their officials—he happens to be a friend of mine—why they did not come to the Republic as well, his reply was, yes. they would have liked to have come to the Republic, but was a tremendous task organizing such a scheme and organizing it successfully. I subsequently referred them to the South African Tourist Corporation and other travel agencies who would be able to organize it thoroughly for them. But they appended a large question mark to the entire matter. I should like to hand the correspondence over to the hon. the Minister.

I am talking about research into publicizing these things and making it possible for airlines, in conjunction with newspapers in this country, if necessary, or other organizations, to be able to finance and organize such trips. I should like to see the South African Airways, in conjunction with one or more of our newspapers, arranging similar tours. I am thinking of tours by overseas people in this country, for example photographic tours. I am convinced that a hunt-with-the-camera tour in this country offers more than Kenya, more than any other country which I know of can offer, because we have a greater variety of scenic attractions. I can imagine how a project such as the one I have just mentioned can develop into a large-scale tourist undertaking if it is organized in the form of photographic expeditions.

I am submitting this idea to the hon. the Minister. I do not want to elaborate on it any longer, because I should like to come to the next point in the short time at my disposal, and that point deals with an item under subhead F, “Grant in aid to the South African Tourist Corporation—R1,228,000”. I want to maintain that a contribution to this Corporation in itself is a good thing. However, competition is also a very good thing, so that the particular industry is not left in the hands of one person or one organization. For that reason I want to ask the Minister to consider the desirability of making a contribution to more than one travel agency and not only to the Tourist Corporation as such, or alternatively of not giving the Corporation so much in comparison with the smaller amounts being given to the other bodies. This might perhaps have good results in this sense that, as a result of the competition which will result, much more will be done in regard to tourism in South Africa. I want to repeat, Sir: Tourism is a product which we sell. The hon. member for Ottosdal spoke about tours in the interior for our own people so that we can learn to know our own country. Apart from that it is terribly important that we make provision for the half million tourists which we are expecting in 1970 and should even now be undertaking preparatory work in order to exceed that number. The fact remains that it is one of our best exports. It is something which if nurtured and if good research is applied and if good publicity can be given to it, can become one of our greatest exports with which we will be able to earn foreign currency.

I think we all agree with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that the tourist industry can become one of the major industries in our economic life. In addition his region, East London, ought in future to draw a large part of the income which it may be possible to earn from this industry. I also want to associate myself with the speech made by the hon. member for Von Brandis. He supplied us with certain statistics in regard to world tourism. He pointed out that during 1966 international tourism earned the colossal amount of R9 million for the countries concerned and that 128 million people toured the 60 most important countries in the world. If we analyse this picture a little closer and compare the various tourist regions of the world with each other then we find that in 1966 Africa earned only R227 million from tourism—in other words one-fortieth, or 2.5 per cent, of the income from world tourism. It is particularly important to us that 1967 will be the year of international tourism.

The slogan “Tourism as passport to peace" has already been chosen as a watchword. That is why it is of importance to us that we avail ourselves of this opportunity to see what we can do to apply tourism, not only as an earner of revenue, not only as a method of closing the large gap between the amount which is being spent by those who leave our country and the amount which is being spent by those who enter our country, but also as a means; instrumental to making our position in the world a safer one. That is why I do not agree with the hon. member for Von Brandis who stated that the R1.25 million which is being appropriated for Satours this year should be applied in some other way. Nor do I agree with the hon. member for East London (City) who stated that consideration should be given to dividing up this R1.25 million amongst the various travel agencies. We should rather see the problem as a whole. When we consider the small percentage, namely 2.5 per cent, which Africa as a tourist region obtained from world tourism during 1966 then we must accept that Southern Africa did not earn more than R110 million in 1966—1.25 per cent of the total revenue accruing from international tourism. I wonder whether the past experience of Satours and other bodies cannot contribute to developing a better form of publicity in order to attract visitors. If we try to analyse the inclinations and habits of people who travel we will find that we very seldom come across a tourist who travels with the purpose of visiting one country only. If one of us decides to go overseas and is prepared to spend R500 or R600 on travelling expenses, then he is inclined to want to visit the greatest number of places. We do not go to Europe therefore to visit Holland only, we go to visit Europe as a whole.

The suggestion I want to make is that when we make publicity for South Africa we must see South Africa as part of a tourist region. We must see Southern Africa as part of a region which is still able to play a major role in international tourism, as a country which can offer something to the world which no other tourist region can offer. We must make Southern Africa in its entirety more attractive for the tourist so that we can place Southern Africa on the map as far as world tourism is concerned. In this way we will be achieving more than one object. The traveller who has travelled through Southern Africa will be able to realize to better effect why we have adopted a certain political course here in South Africa. He will be able to become acquainted with the various stages of development of the various countries in Southern Africa. A person who travels through Southern Africa and who tries to establish a specific industry, will find that it is one of the most difficult tasks which can rest on the shoulders of any entrepreneur to establish a specific industry in those countries, particularly as far as export industries are concerned. But I do believe that international tourism is an industry which can become a major asset in Southern Africa for all countries, from Malawi to Botswana, from Swaziland to Lesotho.

Each of these countries has something which it can offer to the world traveller. We in Southern Africa are trying to-day to create the image that there is co-operation. We have already seen that a person such as Dr. Van Eck has advocated that the supply of power in Southern Africa should in due course be integrated. Over the past few days we have listened to projects in regard to the supply of water in which various countries in Southern Africa can be implicated. I wonder therefore whether international tourism cannot become one of those major projects in which the various countries of Southern Africa are implicated and in respect of which we can obtain their co-operation? Can South Africa, with its greater resources and better trained human material not take the lead, through Satour or in some other way, in obtaining the co-operation of the various countries of Southern Africa in this way to their mutual benefit? Only one thousandth, i.e. R1.6 million of this year’s Estimates is being allocated for the promotion of tourism. But if we want to allow this great potential industry to come into its own, and if we are prepared to make available only one per cent of the Estimates, i.e. R16 million, it would still be a small investment when compared with the tremendous benefits which international tourism can offer our country and Southern Africa.

The hon. member for Von Brandis who introduced the discussion on this Vote mentioned the fact that he regarded himself as the father of Satour. I fully appreciate the interest he has always taken not only in the activities of Satour but in tourism as a whole. But then he thought he was a bit unfair to this baby of his. He was very disturbed because in Satour’s report it only refers to the fact that its accounts were audited by the Controller and Auditor-General and that no accounts were placed before Parliament. But let me point out to the hon. member that in 1947 he sat in this House and if he wanted the accounts of Satour to be tabled he could have moved an amendment. He could have insisted on it. Why now, all of a sudden, insist on it? In actual fact, it is no discourtesy to Parliament. Parliament through the Controller and Auditor-General gets an audited report on the accounts of Satour. This audited account is open to all members, including the father of Satour. I mentioned this only to say that I thought the hon. member was a bit hard in this respect on this baby of his. But he was quite critical of Satour. He wondered whether Satour should not be absorbed by the Department and whether there was any justification for Satour continuing to be an autonomous body.

I raised the question of overlapping.

Satour has been there for many years. Now I want to read from the Hansard reports of last year. It was the first speaker on that side of the House; it was not the hon. member for Von Brandis. It was another member. But this is what he said about Satour. And what a difference it is! He said the following only last year—

In fact, that is the only part of the hon. member for Von Brandis’ speech which reads the same as what was said last year. The hon. member for Durban (Point) will subsequently handle the Hotel Board. I wondered why it was that the hon. member for Von Brandis has now become super-critical of the autonomy of Satour and what he called “overlapping”. He went so far as to talk about a report of the I.C.D. I think it is the 1965 report.

No, it is a recent one.

I think he said it was last year, 1966. This is what the hon. member read, as I thought, from the general criticisms, as he put it. of Satour: “Tourism was a potential source of revenue not being exploited.” He said this is a criticism of the results South Africa is obtaining from the Department of Tourism in South Africa. I would say to the hon. member that that is not a criticism. It is a justification for the establishment of the Department of Tourism. What it states, is: “Tourism has a great potential and that potential should be more and more exploited”.

I hear so much about overlapping. I am not one that wants to see a lot of overlapping, but the one matter, and I talk from a business point of view, that makes me a bit sick is when everybody talks about overlapping and the need for more co-ordination. Of course these general terms are meaningless. In actual fact the aim of this Department of Tourism was precisely to try to canalize the activities of the various sectors of tourism. And Satour is one of them. The hon. member talks about the report of Satour and he was very disappointed, because Satour seemed to be pulling out of the activity of internal tourism. He read from their report in which it says—

But that is the point. Satour’s functions were so wide but in actual practice they had to concentrate on overseas tourists. And it is right that they do so. What they say here, is correct, namely that Satour’s efforts must be concentrated on bringing tourists to South Africa. If I as Minister say: “Look here, what is happening in so far as your activities are concerned? You are not bringing in a sufficient number of tourists”, they cannot answer:“Yes, but according to the Act we have to devote our activities also to domestic tourists.” Overseas tourists are their responsibility, and quite correctly so. Hon. members can now pinpoint on to this Department or the Minister internal tourism, particularly as one facet of the activities of this Department.” But I do not see anything wrong with its report which the hon. member seems to be so critical of. I would say that the whole basis of running this Department is that Satour manages the overseas tourism. The Hotel Board controls and grades, shall I say, hotels. The Department, through the various regional and provincial committees, is going to develop and is developing amenities and facilities for tourism in South Africa. These are the reasons that we feel will eventually bring us the revenue and foreign capital which will come into this country by means of tourists.

I listened to the hon. member for East London (City) and I felt that the hon. member approached the matter on a business-like basis. He said tourism was a business. I agree with him. But he will also agree with me that a business is not built up in a year or two. I quite agree with him. I am not so impressed with the figure of R80 million. Like him, I say that it may be a R80 million turnover, but what is the profit? All these matters I consider in dealing with the problems that we have. On that point I would say that I appreciate, and I think the hon. member will appreciate, that if one wants to run tourism in this country, one has to run it correctly and properly. One has to develop various aspects and certain people have to be held responsible for certain features of tourism. Then one can get somewhere. I hold the Hotel Board responsible for the functions that are under their control. I hold Satour responsible for their functions and I hold myself responsible for the co-ordination of all these activities. I cannot see how the hon. member for Von Brandis can say that the position is worsening and that, as far as he is concerned, he himself is very disappointed. I cannot see it when I read particularly what was said about Satour last June. The hon. member talked about brochures that were issued. I would say that these brochures are essentially issued for overseas. When I discussed the matter with the Department, I said that these brochures, and they are multitudinous, should not go to every member of Parliament. I know what happens. I have been a member myself for many years. One gets so many brochures that one puts them into the waste paper basket. But what I did do, was to arrange that this prestige table calendar with those attractive pictures should be sent to every member of Parliament. I told the Department to do it. Satour did not do it in the past. When I told them to do it I thought that this was something which every member will appreciate. He will not throw it into the basket. It is attractive. It is a prestige calendar. It will be attractive on his desk. It will advertise South Africa. The pictures are excellent. This was the arrangement I made. I cannot see the point the hon. member made that every member of Parliament should get a brochure.

I did not say every member; I said only those who are interested.

All right then, the members who are interested. Let me tell the hon. member that he knows that if any member says to me that he is very interested in certain features of tourism and he would like to have some information, I would happily give him whatever information he asked for. But if I just send the brochures that are issued not in their hundreds, but in their thousands, to members who are interested in tourism, I wonder what they will do with them.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that to my mind there was no very solid criticism for me to reply to. I do not mean that unfairly. I am very anxious to tackle any point that I think is substantial. The hon. member for East London (City) mentioned these photographic hunts. It has given me quite a new idea. Satour itself in fact does advertise and help to organize various particular types of tours, for example fishing tours. I forget what the others were. There were also for example bird-watching tours. I think that this photographic tour is definitely one to which they could give some attention. I would point out to the hon. member that Satour is not a travel agency. It is only a promotional office. Satour keeps in touch with as many travel agents as it can. It leaves the arrangements to the travel agents. It does not take on one order for a trip. It gives tourists advice and brochures and it tries to be helpful to them but it itself is not a travel agent. It will merely tell them to go to their travel agent. We will give them material and show them films about South Africa. They all have films about South Africa. In fact, we lend the agents films. Its whole basis is to work through this competitive enterprise system for which I think the hon. member for East London and myself have a great respect. I believe that that is the way it should be done. I just want to dispel from his mind any idea that Satour was an active travel agent in any way whatsoever.

The hon. member for Turffontein raised a very important matter. That is: What will be the position if and when South Africa is inundated with these jumbo-jets where the capacity is 400 to 500 passengers. In the first place, how are they going to be handled when they arrive and, in the second place, how are they going to be accommodated. All I can tell the hon. member for Turffontein is that we appreciated that situation a few years ago, when we tackled the question of international hotels, which the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) mentioned. In fact, the City Council of Johannesburg and the Government each agreed to underwrite 50 per cent of a loan for three hotels. Two of them are being built at present and I think that the third company has sold its site and is at the present moment not carrying on with its plans to build an international hotel. From that point of view we were very anxious to have that sort of accommodation. I think that the Carlton Centre Hotel was intended to have 600 rooms and the President Hotel approximately 300. You will therefore see that those steps are under way and we realize that when people come in large numbers, you must have that kind of accommodation for them.

I am sorry to hear that the United States News Report did not include South Africa as one of the countries of great tourist interest. Quite frankly I think that Satour’s advertising efforts overseas with the funds that it has available have been reasonably good. I have seen them in very many of these American magazines and also in other publications in the United States. Satour and the Department also invite to this country as guests tourist writers from publications in all the main countries from which tourists come to this country, from America, the United Kingdom and Germany. In that way these people write up South Africa with photographs and we feel that we get the publicity in the best form we can. I noted the hon. member’s remarks about typical South African food. I remember reading the report of the Hotel Commission. It not only talked about South African food but also about the names of hotels. The very points that the hon. member made, were made in that report. It said that hotels with names like the Royal Hotel, the Imperial Hotel, the Crown Hotel, the King Edward Hotel and so on did really not fit into the South African pattern. It is a matter which the hotels themselves must decide. There will be no law or intention on the part of the Government to force any title changing on hotels. It is in the hands of the hotels to decide what they want to call themselves. If they want to call themselves the Imperial Hotel, for example, that is their funeral. It is not ours.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort raised a matter which has always been of considerable interest to me. It is in regard to those South Africans, whom I would describe as tourists. I am not thinking in terms of the holidaymaker who comes to the Cape or goes to the South Coast for his holidays with his family. I am thinking of the tourist. Sometimes they know more about Europe than they do about their own country. They should really think in terms of visiting their own country, which is most attractive. I am hoping that in that way we can gradually persuade these people that one can get more excitement, that one can find more interest here and that by touring through and getting to know one’s own country, one can save our country foreign currency at the same time.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) also spoke about international tourism as big business. I agree with him. The Government agrees with him. That is why we were amazed when there was criticism when this department was established. We were amazed that the criticism came from the Opposition. The Government said:

Tourism is becoming bigger and bigger business and it definitely needs certain supervision and direction. The Government decided to establish this department. I do not say that we are going to see the results to-morrow. I was more than satisfied when I saw that this year the tourist figure had risen to 257,000, whereas last year it had decreased a little on the previous year. I know it was because there was a big decrease in the intake figure in respect of the Rhodesians. This year it has increased to 257,000. What was more satisfactory was that the overseas visitors had increased, if I remember rightly, by 10,000 to 13,000. Basically it is in that field that South Africa will have to find the tourist of the future. We are getting nearly the optimum number of visitors from adjoining territories. It is from the overseas field that we will have to draw the additional numbers in the future. The hon. member spoke about a dynamic approach.

A dynamic Minister,

All I can say is that I believe that rather than having, as the hon. member says, a “dynamic Minister”, the best way of running a business like this is to keep pegging at it all the time. This is better than being a flash in the pan and get nowhere. That is my outlook in this regard. As long as the numbers progress as they are and as they did last year. I shall be satisfied. All I shall do from time to time is to see what avenues there are in which improvements can be made.

The hon. member for Kroonstad raised the matter of training of hotel staff. I think he was referring to Bantu. This was also raised by the hon. member for Turffontein. The director of the Hotel Board advises me that the training course for Coloured waiters and wine stewards commenced in Cape Town during the past week. This is purely a pilot project by which the Hotel Board hopes to get a clearer definition of some of the problems involved. There will be two subsequent short courses of six weeks duration each. There are at the moment approximately 50 Coloureds enrolled in the first course. The Board will be in a position to give more detailed attention to the adaption of overseas courses that would be required for South African conditions. This consideration by the Hotel Board will include attention to the training of managerial staff. All I can say to the hon. member is that this is a matter which is being dealt with by the Hotel Board. From that point of view the matter is being attended to and courses are being conducted. That is the policy that this Department will follow.

What about the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education; what will he say about it?

The hon. member for Vasco dealt with the question of tourism from the point of view of giving people a better understanding and a proper image of this country. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member. I know of people who have come to this country from America, from Britain and from Germany, holding ideas which were quite different from our own, but when they saw things here for themselves their ideas changed and they had a better understanding of the problem that South Africa has to cope with. I fully agree with the hon. member that from that point of view as well it will be to the benefit of South Africa if we can increase the number of tourists coming to this country.

The hon. member for Von Brandis referred to the question of the International Tourist Year. All I can tell him is that we did not participate. We did not make any special feature of the fact that it was the International Tourist Year; we did not put up placards all over the country and attend conferences. We carried on in the same way as before. We considered that our efforts would be better spent along the lines I have indicated.

The hon. member also raised the question of charters, and the hon. member for Durban (Point) said that we had cancelled a number of chartered services. Another hon. member stated that the S.A. Airways objected to charters. Sir, the hon. member is not quite right. It is not only the S.A. Airways who object to charters; the scheduled lines object to charters. I think there must be eight or nine of them and they object to charters because they say that charters take the cream of the traffic at a certain time of the year whereas they have to run scheduled trips on a definite timetable all the year round. They say that the competition of charters is unfair to them. I have heard their arguments. As the Minister of Tourism I have also been very anxious to see whether I can get people to this country cheaply. In the old days, as hon. members know, tourists had to come to this country by boat. They had the time to come by boat, but to-day tourists travel by air, and in the present jet age the time factor is no longer an adverse factor as far as South Africa is concerned. There is a factor which is a handicap and that is the cost of the trip to South Africa.

And the tourist stayed here only half the time.

He stayed only half the time, as the hon. member correctly says. The time spent in South Africa is probably three or four times as long as the average time that a tourist stays in Switzerland or in Paris or anywhere else on the Continent of Europe. The tourist to-day spends more in this country because he stays longer. The amount of R100 for which provision is being made for a survey, is a purely nominal amount. We made inquiries and in my opinion the original cost submitted for this survey was excessive. It was to be conducted in such detail that I turned it down. When the original proposal for a survey was submitted to me I said that I did not believe that a tourist would give you all the information which it was proposed to elicit from the tourist. They wanted the tourist to say how much money he was spending in the country. Why should a tourist tell you how much money he is spending; that is his private affair. What I am more concerned with is to get the essential information which will be a guide to increase tourism.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have dealt with the points raised by hon. members. All I can say to them is that I will welcome criticism. I am very anxious and the Department is anxious to hear what is happening and to hear what the reaction of hon. members is. We will continue to promote tourism and I hope that next year when this Vote comes under discussion again, the figure of 257,000 will have increased again considerably.

I do not know if I heard the hon. the Minister correctly when he said that he felt that he had now mangled all the points raised by hon. members. If that is correct, I think that is an apt description of his handling of the criticisms raised. They were well and truly mangled, not handled.

Sir, I was very interested in the Minister’s new idea of bird-watching tours. We have some interesting birds in South Africa. We must be careful that our tourists are not put off by some of them. For instance there is the Fran-kiepanis peculiarus which is a strange animal, an animal which advocates tourism but seems to be going out of its way to destroy the industry in which those tourists are going to have to live. It is to that aspect of the Minister’s responsibility that I want to devote the little time I have. Other members will return to the question of tourism per se. I want to concentrate on the hotel aspect, the industry as a whole, and the picture as it presents itself at this stage. Sir, in 1965 this House passed the Hotels Act unanimously, with the support of both sides of the House. It is an Act that was needed. The hotels themselves co-operated completely in the discussions and in the preliminaries to the passing of that Act and in due course the board was established. I want to say that the appointment of the chairman was a first-class appointment. I do not think that the hon. the Minister could possibly have found a better person, particularly in view of the investigation which had preceded the Act governing the appointment of the board, by a committee under the chairmanship of that same person. The board has appointed a good staff. I think that the members themselves are people who are devoted and dedicated to the interests of the hotel industry. With these high hopes they approached the task of raising the standard of our hotels, based upon the granting of assistance. At this stage I want to refer to the statement made by the hon. the Minister in February of this year with regard to the R20 million loan facilities available to hotels. The object behind this effort was to up-grade hotels, to raise the standards, so that the travelling public could benefit, and almost immediately the first snag appeared. As the result of a drafting technicality financial aid could not be granted by the Hotel Board except to registered hotels, and that is why the Department is sitting with R20 million loan facilities, because they cannot lend the money to a hotel until it has qualified. In other words, a hotel must first raise its standard, and having spent money it can then come to the board and ask to be further up-graded from an accepted standard to a luxury hotel. This R20 million therefore is not for hotels in general; it is in fact for luxury hotels.

We warned the Minister that his Department should not concentrate only on the needs of the luxury traveller, the very rich man who wants to live in luxury, but should remember that the vast mass of travellers are people who do not want to live in luxury, but they expect a decent standard of cleanliness and of service, and they will be satisfied with that. But an hotel cannot come to the Hotel Board to obtain money to raise itself to that decent middle standard. It must do so with its own resources. It must borrow money at the high rates of interest which are prevalent, whilst this other money lies idle waiting for the hotel to reach that standard. Only then will they lend money to lift hotels from that high standard to the very top standards, and all this is due to a technicality, to a drafting oversight which nobody noticed when the Bill was passed, and which the Minister himself did not notice because he indicated that assistance would be granted. But the hon. the Minister obstinately refuses to bring in the necessary amendment to rectify that technicality, so that they can assist hotels not simply to become luxury hotels but to be graded and classified So what started off with star-spangled hopes for the majority has been a dream shattered. Only a few of them, those in the better class, are getting their wine-glasses and their stars, but for most of them all that has come out of this whole movement has been frustration, and instead of wine-glasses they are getting the bar sinister. They are being excluded from the family of hotels. The Hotel Board itself cannot help them; it cannot lift a finger, because between the unclassified hotel and the Hotel Board there is the National Liquor Board as a barrier. The hotelier has to pass four such barriers before he can get to the Hotel Board to be registered and to. obtain assistance. It is an obstacle race, and by gosh, are some of those obstacles unreasonable! He has to pass the local authority; that is understandable and acceptable. Then he has to pass the Licensing Board with a police inspection. Then he has to pass the National Liquor Board with another police inspection, and only then can he get to the Hotel Board. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to-day. Hotels have been placed under the administration of his Department and I appeal to him to accept the responsibility, not just for the luxury hotels but for all hotels; to approach his colleague the Minister of Justice and to negotiate with him for the taking over of hotels, excluding them entirely from the National Liquor Board and making the Hotel Board responsible for administering all hotels. Then, within the structure of the Hotel Board, he should cater for the ordinary traveller who does not want to pay R10 to R15 a night just for a bed or for bed and breakfast. The vast majority of travellers are the ordinary people either on holiday or on business who are not looking for that sort of luxury. But I am afraid, and I warn the Minister, that unless something is done we are going to find that well over half the hotels in South Africa are going to lose their hotel licences at the end of next year. Only some 68 out of 1,500 hotels have been graded. At the very best there will be more than 1,000 to 1,200 hotels at the end of next year which stand to lose their liquor licences and will therefore cease to be hotels in the accepted sense. They can then become wine and malt inns, or whatever they are called. I ask the hon. the Minister not to wait until next year, a few months before the deadline, but to accept the responsibility now and to consult with the hon. the Minister of Justice and to try to work out a solution based upon unified control of the licensing both of the liquor and the non-liquor aspects of all hotels or accommodation establishments designed for tourism, for tourists coming from overseas as well as those who live in this country. I have no sympathy for dumps. I am not pleading for the person whose sole interest is to sell liquor and who does not care about his hotel. [Time expired.]

The hon. the Minister in his reply referred to the speech made by the hon. member for Turffontein, who is not here now. He referred to the large number of hotels in this country which are still called the Queen’s Hotel, etc. I was rather disappointed in the reply of the hon. the Minister. I think that the hon. the Minister accepts that this is part of the heritage of South Africa; this is part of our back-ground and of our history, and I thought that at least the hon. the Minister would have contradicted the hon. member in his sentiments and at least would have castigated him and told him to leave it alone. Before I leave the hon. the Minister, may I just remind him that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) raised the question of international and world congresses, and the hon. the Minister has not so far given us a reply to that question.

I want to deal with tourism, mainly local tourists, but affecting tourists from outside South Africa as well. We are all extremely proud of our country and of the attractions this country has, the game parks, the flora reserves, the bird sanctuaries and our scenic splendours. A comparatively recent development in the tourists industry is the phenomenal rise in the number of people touring the country by caravan or just camping. This is becoming an increasingly greater part of the tourist industry. More and more people are using this means every year. They are getting out into the open air; they are getting close to nature, and they are getting back to the wild. In fact, I consider this to be a hankering to get back to what a lot of hon. members in this House had during their youth, when nature was virtually on their doorsteps, something which the youth of South Africa to-day do not have. Many of us are to-day unfortunately confined to the concrete jungles. This is their way of throwing off the shackles of city life and escaping from the bonds of civilization.

Visiting caravanners from overseas have told caravan organizations in this country that South Africa is now ripe for the development of internal tourism. They give as a reason that more and more caravanners from overseas will come to South Africa because they are looking for new places to explore. They particularly look for those places which have caravanning and camping facilities. This is very big business overseas. In America in 1965, 37 million people went camping. In addition to that, another 34.5 million went fishing, which also involves a degree of camping, possibly in huts. In Western Europe alone 17 million campers were out during 1965. In Germany there are 700,000 tents and there are 30,000 caravans. South Africa’s potential, with the climate that we have and our scenery, is enormous, and it is the responsibility of this hon. Minister and his Department to encourage this industry. I want to quote an editorial from a magazine called Caravan, which is the official journal of the Caravan Club of South Africa and the Camping Club and the Caravan Parks and Holiday Resort Owners’ Association. This is a magazine representative of all branches of this tourist industry. They say in their April, 1967, edition—

Not so long ago tourism was something which was reserved only for the wealthy people, those who could afford to pay the high prices they had to pay in hotels and those who could afford the high cost of travelling. The position is changing now with the cheaper modes of transport we have, with our good roads. With the developing of caravanning and camping, tourism is now being enjoyed by the middle classes and other people who form the majority of the population. It is no longer restricted to the favoured few at the top. Estimates of the number of caravans in South Africa at the moment vary from 34,000 to 45,000. The production of caravans in this country increases every year. Production during 1966 alone was approximately 5,200, as far as I can ascertain. Overseas visitors to this country are showing an increasing interest every year. Inquiries are being received by the organizations I mentioned about caravans for hire, caravan camps and parks. Many people are coming to South Africa with their own caravans. The reason given by some American caravanners who were out here was, as I said earlier, to escape from the grime of civilized life. Another reason given by these people is that those who have caravans and who have camped in this country are going back with glowing reports of the hospitality of people in this country. One person went so far as to say that the South African people, and particularly our farmers, are the most hospitable people that they have come across in travelling through 42 countries. The number of caravan parks and camping grounds in this country is increasing every month. Little known places are being opened up. This raises the point which was mentioned by the hon. member for Mooi River during the discussion of the hon. Minister’s other Department, namely Forestry. I refer to the question of control. I agree that the time has come when a degree of control of these caravan camps and camping grounds is necessary. On the 27th February of this year this House passed legislation enabling the provinces to control this very matter. On the 10th February the hon. the Minister of Health in Government Gazette Extraordinary No. 1652 promulgated certain regulations governing the control of caravan parks and camping grounds. These regulations laid down minimum requirements for camping grounds and caravan parks. The hon. member for Kimberley (North) during the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Health mentioned these things and pointed out the deficiencies. The point is that these regulations laid down by the Minister of Health are minimum regulations but we find that they are higher than the regulations laid down overseas. As the hon. member for Kimberley (North) pointed out, if these are adhered to, it will raise the cost of spending a night in a caravan park from the present R1 to R1.50 per night to nearly R10. I am not going to argue concerning these figures because I have not gone into them. I accept them. This is of course going to put it out of everybody’s reach. I believe that at the moment you can spend a night in the caravan camp at Venice for the equivalent of 90 cents.

You are not allowed in Venice with a caravan.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot argue with the hon. the Minister, but the figure is given in the magazine I have here. I will refer it to the hon. the Minister, because that figure is given. The caravan camps are on the outskirts of the town. In view of the reply given by the hon. the Minister of Health when he said that these were only specimen regulations and that he was prepared to consult with anybody on this matter, I want to appeal to this hon. Minister to intercede on behalf of the caravanners and the campers of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to complete the point I was making. My arguments are not designed in any way to protect the slum hotel. When I say slum hotel, I mean the hotel which does not care and takes no pride in its cleanliness, its service and its facilities. I am speaking now for the users of and the owners of small, clean, decent hotels providing a service and reasonable standards, but which cannot meet the strict and rigid standards laid down both for classification and for grading. I have an example here. Here is an article headed “Hoteliers dilemma”. A small hotelkeeper, with an hotel with seven rooms, describes what she has to do in order to qualify for classification and so to become graded. Although some of these things have tolerances, when one sees it set out by a person in this form, one realizes how rules and regulations laid down on paper become ridiculous when applied to certain circumstances.

For instance, kitchens have to have two doors into the dining room. This hotelier is worried. She says that she must put in an extra door so that her one waiter will not bump into himself when he goes into the kitchen, or so that he will not meet himself coming out of the dining room. She has to put in three sinks to serve the five people who have meals there, because the regulations say so. She has mirrors 12 inches by 30 inches in the wardrobes, but that is not good enough. They have to be 15 inches by three foot. A hotel was turned down because it had mirrors one inch short. The mirrors were 2 foot 11 inches instead of 3 foot by 15 inches. That I inch short led to an hotel being told that it had to replace those mirrors. I know what the Minister’s answer will be. He will say that I am talking of classification. [Interjection.] Yes, of course. I am talking of classification, which is not the job of the Hotel Board, but which is the barrier in the way of the hotelier reaching the Hotel Board. I am appealing to this Minister to remove that barrier. It is not his Department which lays down these physical requirements. His Department lays down other requirements on a points basis. Some of those too—I do not have time to go into them—do not apply in the case of the small hotel. Before the hotel ever gets to him, it has to pass this barrier and provide this sort of amenity, which is often unnecessary. My appeal to the Minister is to take over full control so that he can deal with the problem as a whole.

Finally I want to refer to a statement by an official of the Hotel Board which was made recently about the appointment of inspectors.

He said—

This was a statement made in regard to the duties and the plans of the Board by one of the inspectors of the Hotel Board. The Act lays down specifically—I remember the amendment which I myself moved—that an inspector entering a hotel must inform the person who is for the time being in charge or control of the establishment. I ask the hon. the Minister not to create a board of snoopers, but to act in the spirit in which this legislation was passed, to co-operate and not to act as spies over hoteliers, trying to catch them out. He should co-operate with them so that we can get mutual respect and mutual confidence and a healthy industry in South Africa.

Let me first of all deal with the matters referred to by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). I think the hon. member should be a little bit more careful when he makes remarks such as he did about the witchdoctor for Turffontein. I want to warn the hon. member that this type of remark has a lasting effect on the hon. member making them. I should like to advise the hon. member just to guard that tongue of his a little bit more. Regarding the names of hotels, he said I should have castigated the hon. member for Turffontein for mentioning that certain names were unsuitable for South Africa. I want to tell the hon. member that he should have read the Hotel Commission’s report on this matter. On that Commission there was a man like Col. Maggs who also said that these names were not typical South African names. He must, therefore, avoid being more jingo than the jingos.

I am, of course, not referring to Col. Maggs as a jingo, but what I am saying is that everybody in South Africa, except the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), considers some of these names hotels have adopted in the past as unsuitable for South Africa. I told the hon. member that as far as names for hotels were concerned no legislation was contemplated, no instruction was given by me and no such instruction was intended. But that did not satisfy the hon. member. No—he was disappointed that I did not castigate the hon. member for Turffontein! I think the hon. member should grow up. The other point about the speech was his enthusiasm for caravans. I myself was a very keen caravanner. As a matter of fact, I lived in a caravan when I was originally a member of Parliament. Is the hon. member so enthusiastic as to live in a caravan? The hon. member shakes his head. I wonder whether he has ever owned a caravan? Again he shakes his head. But the hon. member for Kimberley (North) is living in a caravan. I myself have a great appreciation for caravan life—all the natural beauties of it. I visited many caravan parks. I visited the one built by the divisional council at Miller’s Point and I visited the one at Muizenberg established by the city council. For a family man I think caravanning is the ideal way to spend a holiday and at the same time to see his own country. I say so because I have practical experience and the practical knowledge of caravanning. I fully appreciate the position referred to by the hon. member for Kimberley (North), a position now being created by the promulgation of certain health regulations applicable to caravan parks. Here I may say that I have stayed in caravan parks where conditions, to say the least, were disgusting. I realize that health regulations must be enforced. The hon. member says that a province can now lay down certain minimum standards.

I think you missed my point, Sir. The hon. the Minister …

Order! Will the hon. member please resume his seat?

I am sorry if I have missed his point. But let me tell him that I am not in favour of regulations which will put caravan parks out of business or render them too expensive. However, I am in favour of improving the standards and conditions in these parks.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) raised the question of world congresses. My attitude to this is that, in the first instance, we do not have the accommodation to hold world congresses in South Africa. We may have them in the Carlton Centre and when the Presidential Hotel is available. Then one can contemplate holding congresses here. I also want to tell the hon. member that I do not think it is the responsibility of the Government to provide congress accommodation in Johannesburg, or in any city for that matter.

I think that ought to be the responsibility of the local authorities.

I want the Government to encourage it.

Does the hon. member know what that encouragement means? It means financial encouragement. But I say this ought to be the responsibility of local authorities. If a congress hall is desirable why should the Government assist financially one for Johannesburg, for instance, and not one for Bloemfontein?

Why not? That is being done all over the world.

For the simple reason that that is the function for which local authorities are there. A local authority is there to do a job. If a local authority wants to attract a world congress and it feels it has the facilities available then it is for him to decide what to do.

And what about South Africa’s interests?

The hon. member for Salt River talks about South African interests. But that hon. member is thinking only in terms of Cape Town’s interests and not of that of South Africa. Let me now turn to my hon. friend, the hon. member for Durban (Point). He talked about bird watching and named a bird with a nice fancy name of “Frankie” or something like that. I should like to say to the hon. member that he is a rara avis. I think that is the phrase. Yet, I cannot imagine him flitting from branch to branch—it must be like some of these big logs I talked about under the Forestry Vote! The hon. member also referred to the Hotel Board. I appreciate his complimentary remarks about the chairman, whom he said was a first class choice. Well, that is why he was appointed. But then the hon. member came back to the old line he also took last session. He said this board had R20 million and yet it was only interested in financing luxury hotels while not interested in doing anything for the poor hotelier. Of course, Sir, that is complete nonsense. I want him to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) whether the city of Johannesburg found any fault with the decision of the Government to underwrite a loan for these two international hotels in Johannesburg, hotels which are luxury hotels and will have five stars.

Nobody does.

But that had nothing to do with the finances of the Hotel Board. That was done quite separately. But let us come back to the Hotel Board. The hon. member said this Board had loan facilities to the extent of R20 million but that these were lying idle because we were only interested in financing luxury hotels.

To help hotels to become luxury hotels.

The hon. member in this respect is taking the same line as his party is taking about the small farmer and poor man being neglected. Now the small hotel is being neglected while only luxury hotels are being looked after. This is absolute nonsense. From what the hon. member had to say one would conclude that the only hotels which were being classified were four star and five star hotels. Well, let us look at the figures. Fifty-two hotels have been graded up to now and a further 37 applications have been received to date. But of these 52 there is only one five star hotel, namely the King Edward. I do not say there will not be more five star hotels but up to date only one has been registered as such and can, if it required funds, make an application to the Hotel Board for assistance. Amongst these 52 there are no four star hotels; there are five three star hotels; 19 two star hotels and 27 one star hotels which have brought themselves up to the standards required for classification out of their own pocket as was intended by the Act.

How many of them have been assisted by the Board with money?

I’ll give you the whole position. The hon. member said this was a technicality. Last year he said I should amend the Bill; this year he wants me to speak to the Minister of Justice. Therefore, he has changed his grounds a bit.

You are mangling my speech again.

Last year he said this was a technical mistake I had made. But last year I told him that this was the policy the Government had adopted, that the National Liquor Board lays down certain standards for classification, standards with which hotels must comply. Those standards—which are not stars—are standards for the purpose of classification, and they themselves have to find the necessary funds. Because that hotel’s classification by the National Liquor Board involves the granting of a liquor licence. Moreover in terms of the Act. as amended, an off-sales licence can also be acquired. In order to enjoy these benefits, they had to bring their hotels up to certain standards. They could not just be liquor outlets —they had to have accommodation facilities which satisfied the National Liquor Board. Our arrangement is—and the Act says so quite definitely—that if they were classified by the National Liquor Board the Hotel Board must register them. Once registered, they enjoyed the accompanying benefits. One of the benefits is that they can then borrow money from the Hotel Board. In South Africa we now have 27 one-star hotels. Each one of them can come to the Hotel Board, as they no doubt will do, and say, “Look, we have been registered; we spent our money to bring our hotel up to the standard required; and we have not borrowed money for that purpose from the Government.” That is what the hon. member wants me to do, he wants me to lend hotels money with which to obtain a liquor licence. The hotels concerned can say, “We have been classified; we are a one-star hotel; will you lend us R20,000 or R30,000 because we can make certain alterations, certain improvements and then we can be promoted to a two-star or a three-star hotel?” That is available to them.

Then they can become a luxury hotel.

They can improve their hotel, which is the whole idea. The member may call a two-star a luxury hotel, but we do not call it a luxury hotel. We say it is a good hotel; it is better than a one-star hotel. Similarly, a three-star hotel is better than a two-star hotel. But the hon. member only has one idea: He wants to create the impression that this Government is only interested in luxury. We know that that is what he is trying to do. That is what he did last year, and he has come back doing it again this year. The position is quite clear. I know that the hon. member has many friends who think that they are entitled to receive money from the Government with which to improve their hotels, so that they attain a certain standard which will enable them to obtain a liquor licence. I know it. But we do not agree with that idea. We say that that is their own responsibility. After all, it is not so long ago that the whole hotel industry had no Government funds on which they could draw. The only Government funds on which they can draw now, is for improving the standard of their hotels once they are registered. I got the impression last year that the voice of the hon. member, as well as a few other voices, were voices in the wilderness. It is our intention to improve the standards of hotels in South Africa, and we are not going to finance hotels so that they can be classified and thus obtain a liquor licence. That is quite definite. It is not a matter of me making representations to the hon. the Minister of Justice. I told this to the Hotel Board. I told this to Fedhasa. I had an interview with the Hotels Board on this very question. Last year the hon. member made the accusation that the only people who supported the Minister were the officials on the Hotel Board. Is that not so?

That is not true, it is absolutely untrue.

It is in Hansard. In reply I said so. no, there was an outside member who also supported the idea that the Board’s money should not be used for that purpose. The hon. member is barking up the wrong tree. The hoteliers whom the hon. member is talking about had better get down to it and improve the standard of their hotels so as to get classified. As far as I am concerned, once they are classified they will get the full treatment; they will enjoy the full benefits; they will receive the remissions in taxes which they are allowed to get in terms of the legislation. All these things they will get. They will enjoy all the advantages which flow from being registered with the Hotel Board.

The hon. member made a big song about and tried to get a laugh over some person who had a hotel with seven rooms and who objected to having to have two dining room doors—one “in” and one “out”—because, so the query went, who was the one waiter serving going to run into—himself? The hon. member tried to get a laugh out of it. You know, Sir, you can go anywhere in Europe, and if you found an establishment with only seven rooms calling itself an hotel, I would really be very much surprised. The establishment which the hon. member gave as an example I do not regard as an hotel. If that person does not get classified, and, therefore, does not get registered, well, then I feel sorry for her, because then she cannot call her establishment an hotel, not after 1968. That is the law, and that is the way in which the Act was intended to improve the situation regarding the name “hotel”. But for the hon. member to make an issue of and to try and create the impression that such a terrible hardship is placed on a person with a hotel of seven rooms and one waiter …! The person concerned can still enjoy a wine and malt licence and she can still run her show as effectively as she has done in the past.

Would it make any difference if it were ten rooms?

Listen: The hon. member objected because the hotel dining room only had one door while two doors were required there. It was asked by him whether the one waiter serving would knock himself over? That is the position. I did not mention the figure of seven rooms—the hon. member did.

The hon. member also talked about various other aspects of classification. These are matters which in practice, and quite rightly so. come under the regulations of the National Liquor Board. They do not come within the ambit of my regulations.

The last point made by the hon. member concerned an alleged statement made by an inspector with regard to his right to visit places on the quiet or. as he said, as a “snooper”. I must say that I am very happy that he corrected himself and said that it was not the Minister who had said that, but an inspector.

His name was very similar to yours.

Well, there is a big difference between a name and a Ministerial statement. I am aware of the amendment which the hon. member moved and I was very pleased to accept it. Because from the Hotel Board point of view, there is no intention of allowing our inspectors to be snoopers. There is no intention of sending them around on the quiet to see what they can find out. We want to co-operate with the hotels. We want them to have confidence, not only in the inspectors but also in the Hotel Board. If, for instance, we have a hotel which is, say, just below two-star standard, our whole purpose is to try and see how we can help that hotelier to get into the two-star bracket, instead of remaining in the one-star bracket. That is the atmosphere that is being created. I hope that the hon. member will assist myself and the Board to create that confidence, because the system which we are adopting can only be for the good of the country as a whole. If that atmosphere could be created, it would be of great advantage for our tourists in the future.

I have here a note which I feel I should read to the House concerning the statement of the inspector. Referring to the Hotel Board, it reads as follows—

I want to say to the hon. member that I was not aware of this development. I just took it for granted that an inspector had made a very foolish remark, perhaps because he did not know the law. But here it was stated that what appeared in the Press was a misrepresentation of what had in fact occurred, and an apology was received. That is why I say to the hon. member: Much of what one reads in the newspapers has to be taken with a pinch of salt, and then, I think. South Africa will be a correctly regarded democratic country.

Mr. Chairman, this is a relatively new Vote, dealing with sport and recreation. South Africa is particularly fortunate in that many of our sportsmen are of world-class, although we are a comparatively small country. There is hardly a sport that one can mention in which South Africa has not achieved success and in which sportsmen have not made a name for themselves on behalf of the country. I think, for instance, of boxing, tennis, golf, swimming, athletics, and so on. I think that we should be proud of those achievements. It is quite right for us to have a department which is going to help the sporting world along, and perhaps, more particularly, help recreation. I regard that as of vital importance. I think that the Minister is extremely fortunate in having the Secretary and staff who have been appointed to his department. I believe, if I may say so, that that augurs well for the future.

Looking at this Vote of R250,000, being a new Vote, I believe one can say it is a token provision. It seems to me that there may be good reason for that. In the times in which we find ourselves large amounts cannot be voted. But I fail to see how in the future this Department is going to come out on such a small amount. This Vote comprises an amount of, as I said, R250,000, and of this amount grants are to be made, including one to the shark research station at Durban, to the tune of R136,000, leaving R114,000 for administration purposes. Obviously this is not an excessive amount. But the greater proportion of this Vote should obviously be in respect of grants and assistance that will be given to the sporting and recreational world. According to sub-head F this will amount to R122,000. I should like to ask the Minister whether he can tell the House how this amount of R122,000 is to be allocated. He has issued two very good brochures which give the functions of the Department. He set that out, of course, when he gave a statement of his policy in the Other Place. The functions are given under various headings. The first is “Co-operation and help to Sporting Bodies and Recreation Associations that encourage character-building, discipline and Physical Fitness.” The next one is, “Encouraging Schemes for the Training of Coaches and Participants”, followed by, “Co-operation with Sporting Bodies and Efforts to organize Overseas Tours.” Then there is also “Improving of Facilities for Participation for all Racial Groups”, and “All Forms of Physical Activity which are of a Character-building Nature”. Then there is a miscellaneous item indicating that anything which may be deemed fit can be assisted.

Mr. Chairman, I think that one would be justified in asking at this stage how the amount of R122,000 is to be allocated over the various functions. Where is it going to be spent, what is it going to be spent on? How does the Minister envisage that expenditure? I think at this early stage the Minister’s replies could be a guide to his policy and indicating where the emphasis is placed at the moment. It is appreciated that one cannot tackle everything at the same time, and more so not with this relatively small amount.

I should like to ask the Minister in particular what his approach to recreation is. One can understand the approach to sport and physical fitness, and how he is going to assist in those matters. Recreation would obviously refer in the main to the older section of the population. I am thinking of the planning of recreational grounds, but I am curious to know what sort of items the Minister has in mind. Is it any hobby, any particular thing? Obviously the word “recreation” has a very wide meaning, and I think that we should like to know what the Minister has in mind in that respect. What does the Minister envisage spending the money on? What is the nature of the things which the Minister is going to assist?

I regard the function of the Minister in the field of sport, physical fitness and recreation as being that of a co-ordinator. It would cause others to do various things. The Department does the planning and the thinking, and others do the necessary work. At the same time I would ask the Minister whether it would not be advisable, even at an early stage, to establish under his Department a “sports clinic” or “sports academy” as a central point. This has been suggested, and I thought the suggestion to be particularly worthy of note, one which should be put to the hon. the Minister. I believe that if such an organized institution were brought into being, the coaches, the sports administrators and all those connected with the activities of this Department would be able to run courses, give coaching, and indulge in all the sundry activities that take place. This would all be done at a central point, from where it could go out to the various centres, from where the information could be spread further. I believe the greatest benefit would result from such a step being taken. I do not believe that initially the expenditure would be so considerable. It could start in a relatively small way and grow as the organization grew itself. I commend this to the serious consideration of the Minister. I believe it to be something worthwhile, something which could help to do the work which his Department obviously is desirous of doing.

There are other speakers on this side who will deal with various other aspects of the functions of the Department.

Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to hear from the hon. member for Von Brandis to-night that the Opposition is now also satisfied with the amount requested for the Department of Sport and Recreation. As you know, the hon. member for Constantia had objected to any amount being voted in this connection. We would like to hear from the Opposition at some stage or other what their attitude is as far as this matter is concerned.

They also ask—and in this I agree with the hon. member for Von Brandis—that sports centres should be built. That will mean that more money will have to be provided on this Vote.

Very great emphasis is placed on sport these days, and that is a good thing, because sport is a very powerful weapon in the international arena to-day. It is a weapon the full potential of which should be exploited by the State. But this fact, coupled with the additional fact that the amount placed at the disposal of the Department is a very modest one, has had the result that the hon. the Minister and the handful of able officials who assist him have necessarily had to let the accent fall on sport as such. And I want to congratulate them on what they have achieved in this short space of time.

Progress reported.