If we were to give every week a name according to the most important events of that week, then I think we could have called last week the S.A. Defence Force Week. It was truly a week of a series of unparalleled highlights. Firstly we had Admiral Gnavi of Argentina here on a visit, and that shows us what close ties of friendship have been knit with other countries in the Southern Hemisphere, and one would like to express the hope that this will happen on an even larger and more general scale. After that we had the White Paper on Defence and Armaments Production, and how inspiring that was. What authority and confidence it inspired! It is very clear that the S.A. Defence Force has teeth, and our enemies will have to take cognizance of that fact. They will have to ponder this fact and reflect at great length; otherwise they will he sharpening their knives in vain, we will be too much for them.

This was followed by the announcement by the hon. the Minister in regard to the guided missile. It was a wonderful announcement and it is clear that a rash and foolhardy aggressor will find that it has bitten off more than it can chew and will very quickly come down with certain allergies. I should like to extend my sincere congratulations to the hon. the Minister, as well as to the men of the S.A. Defence Force and the scientists who developed this weapon, and wish them everything of the best for the future. They are playing an important role and form a major link in the defence chain of our Defence Force.

In addition I cannot help paying a word of tribute in passing to our dynamic Army with its dynamic young group of officers. One expects a great deal from them still. With so many young people at the helm and with such brainpower, things simply cannot go wrong in our Defence Force, and our country has a firm foundation on which to build.

Since the amount of R1,390,000 is being requested in these Estimates for the specific purpose of being used at Voortrekkerhoogte for housing purposes, electricity supply, roads, etc., I should like to dwell for a moment on this matter. Almost half of this amount is to be spent on housing, and this gives one cause to feel grateful. One likes to see that these people are well accommodated, and at a reasonable rent. Here the Department of Defence has already accomplished a great deal, and a good policy has progressed far along the road to completion.

At present the houses are being allocated on a points system and the man with longer service has the advantage because he receives 10 points for every completed month of service and he even receives special point allocations after 20 or 30 years’ service, and then of course he also receives recognition for children. This is the best and the fairest system because if affords recognition to the man who joins the Defence Force and stays there, and to my way of thinking this is an excellent way of recognizing, and consequently, of rewarding faithful service. These people understand this method and accept it.

Those who are not accommodated at Voortrekkerhoogte know that it is merely a question of time, and they believe that, just like the faithful, they must not be hasty. But there are nevertheless people here who feel that the fact that they are caught up in this interim position requires a new approach, and perhaps a more sympathetic one. I am thinking for example of newly married couples, of people with large families who do not have so many years of service behind them. They have only recently entered the Army and do not have sufficient points to make provision for their large families, and must therefore rent houses outside Voortrekkerhoogte. If any concession could possibly be made in this regard it would be very welcome. I should like to refer here to the example of what is being done in the Public Service, where there is a concession in the form of a subsidy in respect of the rate of interest on their loans.

Then I also want to point out that there is an amount of R100,000 in the Estimates for the improvement of electrical installations in domestic buildings. This is very welcome, because it is really necessary in many of the older buildings that improvements be made. It has always been striking that on one side of Voortrekkerhoogte one can find the most modern equipment, such as the Mirage for example, and on the other one can find other articles which are a little bit older, such as a coal stove. These people will appreciate it very much if this contradiction in terms can be eliminated and if more hygienic circumstances and amenities can be supplied by eliminating those coal stoves.

Another major improvement is the amount of R37,000 on the Estimates which will be used to improve roads and services. It is felt that the new ideas in respect of township development, where the services on the roads are completed before the houses, are good ideas and the correct ones. The snag is simply that the older areas, which are already lagging behind, lag further and further behind because all the attention on development is concentrated in the newer areas. This amount of R37,000 is to make up the backlog, and it is a very good idea. One can perhaps think in terms of increasing this amount a little in future, because there are still a good number of roads which have not yet been developed. I am thinking here for example of the road to Kempheuwel.

Another matter which I should like to mention to the hon. the Minister, relates to the Defence Force Medical Continuation Fund. When the present dispensation came into effect in January 1964 there were a few men who, without a break in their service, had at that date already been taken into the service of the Defence Force under section 20. I want to emphasize that there was no break in service. The line must be drawn somewhere, and the date which was subsequently chosen was January 1964. The consequence is that they and their families and not enjoying benefits under the Medical Continuation Fund which are being enjoyed by people who joined subsequently. If the hon. the Minister could ascertain how many people are involved in this and whether they cannot be accommodated, these people who approached me in regard to the matter would appreciate it very much indeed.

If there is one matter which is of concern to all of us, then it is the adequate defence of our country. I think our objective in this regard would be the same too. We would like to achieve the optimum effort with the least waste of manpower and with as little expenditure as possible of our natural resources. It is in this connection that I would like to put one or two proposals before this Committee.

I think it is generally accepted nowadays that wars are won and lost and that conflict is resolved in the international field not so much as a result of the use of physical manpower but rather as a result of a country’s industrial capacity and its economic staying power. All power in a certain sense derives from economic power, and what I believe is important is that our economic potential should be increased all the time. In this sense the fundamental choice that we face as a nation is the ratio that we should set between gold and lead, or to put it more appropriately, between bullion and bullets. It is this ratio which is of major consequence to us. As I have said before, our best long-term defence is our economic strength. We all accept it that portion of our national capacity should be diverted into defence activity, but the choice that is before us is what particular portion should be so diverted.

To see this in its perspective, I think one could put it as follows: All defence expenditure is basically inflationary, so we do not want to spend more than is absolutely necessary in terms of the obligations that we will have to meet. Inflation is, of course, a major problem that we face in this country. I think defence expenditure is also economically unproductive in this sense that it does not yield revenue. If I buy a machine too, it is economically a productive investment, because I can use this machine tool to manufacture other items. But if I invest in a machine gun, then it is not revenue producing and economically it is unproductive because a machine gun cannot manufacture anything; all that it can do is to fire bullets. This means not further revenue but further expenditure. Accordingly it is important for every country to determine what portion of its national wealth it should divert to this defence commitment. Sir, it is customary for nations to express this in terms of the amount that they spend, and they normally express it as a percentage of the gross national product. In the White Paper which we have before us we are told that we are at present spending 2½ per cent of our gross national product on defence. This seems an insignificant amount in order to safeguard our long-term security. But, Sir, 2½ per cent of our gross national product is a relative figure. It is only slightly less than we spend on education; it is certainly more than we spend on basic research, and at 270 odd million rand, which is the nature of our defence budget, we are spending on defence close on 17 per cent of total State expenditure on Revenue Account. In this sense it therefore becomes a very sizeable amount.

But I want to suggest to this Committee that even this amount is only the direct amount that we devote to Defence; that there are certain other hidden costs, because in our particular case where our forces consist of a small Permanent Force element and a very much bigger Citizen Force element, we divert large numbers of people from the productive sector away from productive tasks. If we allow for this in its economic totality, we find that we spend not only 2½ per cent of our G.N.P. on defence, but twice as much or even three times as much. Therefore, it is an investment of very considerable consequence. I believe that our country should from time to time review whether we are making the best possible use of our economic and strategic resources. This is an issue which one cannot leave to the defence staff only, because by the very nature of these matters, they will tend to overinsure. I want to propose that the Government should consider appointing at the highest possible level a Strategic Resources Advisory Council which would go well beyond the idea of a Defence Council. This body would operate at the highest possible level. Not only would the defence staff and other interests be represented on such a council, but also our top economists. They should be represented because in the ultimate sense our defence activity is an economic commitment. This is the thought which I, in the first place, should like to put before this committee.

Going hand in hand with this is the question of the composition of our defence services. This, I am sure, is largely a function of the assessment which we make of the sort of strategic situation we shall have to face. Generally speaking, it seems that we are facing three sets of eventualities, first of all, conventional warfare, secondly unconventional warfare and thirdly a combination of the first two. More and more knowledgeable people suggest that unconventional warfare is the type of warfare we might have to face. If this were the case it would further strengthen my argument. For years our Defence Force consisted of a small Permanent Force element. It consisted of an administrative, a training nucleus and a very much bigger active citizen service. The old system has served us well in the past, but I suggest that the time might have arrived where we should review this situation. I believe that the ratio which obtains at the moment might well have to be changed. To begin with, warfare is changing and we need the professional element, a bigger Permanent Force. We want a strong, mobile, highly trained force that could deal with any incursion into South Africa instantly, and see to it that the spark does not become a conflagration. Nobody here can deny that a professional element will be better placed to cope with this sort of situation. Seen against the broader economic canvas of South Africa, it will also cost us far less. If we were to change the ratio and have a bigger Permanent Force element and a small Citizen Force element, we shall be able to pay for it more than adequately when these hidden economic costs to which I have referred, are taken into consideration. Therefore, I suggest that we should consider a change in the ratios which obtain at the moment. We should work in the direction of a bigger Permanent Force and a smaller Citizen Force.

I can think of only one objection which might be held, and that is that it may be said we shall not be able to obtain these people. We cannot fill all the vacancies at the moment. That might well be so, but if the Permanent Force wants to fill all these vacancies, it would have to become competitive. This is not just a question of what the people are paid, but also of the fringe benefits which go hand in hand with salaries. I cannot comment on the rates of pay, because the hon. the Minister has just announced new rates and we must first of all study the effects the introduction of such rates might have. However, I want to refer to one fringe issue namely housing. In the White Paper it is said that the Cabinet has accepted that housing will be stepped up from 60 per cent to 100 per cent. This sounds very good, but at the moment we are nowhere near to 60 per cent. I say this, because recently I asked the question of how many married Permanent Force personnel are in fact housed in married quarters. Only in one grade did it exceed 60 per cent, and that was warrant officers, where the figure of 61.3 per cent was given. Of the generals, only 52.6 per cent are housed in married quarters. For privates it is as low as 11.3 per cent. The average would therefore be a low one unless we have an army which has more generals than privates. What I am trying to suggest is that a tremendous backlog has to be made good. At the moment it seems to me that the average number of people who are housed is in fact very much below the 60 per cent mark shown in the White Paper. I asked the hon. the Minister quite recently what percentage of people who have resigned were actually living in married quarters. The hon. the Minister replied that 3 per cent of them were not living in married quarters. Surely, this is not correct, because by implication it means that 97 per cent of those people who resign from the Permanent Force are housed in married quarters. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall not try to reply to the points which have just been raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow. I think the hon. the Minister will reply to them. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa have a sense of safety and security to-day in this country in which we live. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the inhabitants of South Africa have this sense of safety not because of indifference or plain over-confidence, but because we know that we have attained the highest standard of military preparedness, thanks to his dynamic leadership and the watchfulness of the Department of Defence. We are very much aware of the unrest and tension in the world. In spite of this, I say, we are enjoying this safety, even though we know that threats are directed at South Africa from time to time. Our sense of safety and security is based on the standard of military preparedness which we have achieved in South Africa, thanks to the training received by our boys in all the divisions of our Defence Force. We have a high regard for the way in which our boys are being trained, the way in which their services are being employed in the time they have at their disposal. We also know that heavy demands are being made on the boys of South Africa as a result of the great economic development and expansion in South Africa. But in spite of that our young men are being trained and made fit for military service. We are grateful for this, and we highly appreciate it. In fact, this is what our sense of security and safety in South Africa is based on.

Sir, there is however a deficiency which I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s notice. I want to ask whether the time has not arrived for a proper and thorough investigation to be made into the training of our girls in South Africa in this field, so that they may train and equip themselves for a time of crisis that may occur. May it never occur, but if it does, they would then be trained and equipped and would know how to act and how to conduct themselves at such a time. I want to say at once that I am not asking for the feminity of our girls to be destroyed. I am not asking that we should turn our girls into hard militarists. Israel is often held up as an example to us. I am not going to plead for that and ask that it be applied here as well. I am asking whether the time has not arrived for a thorough investigation to be ordered into the possibility of training our girls, so that we may afford recognized women’s organizations in South Africa the opportunity of expressing their views on this matter. It is my experience that there is a growing desire amongst the girls themselves to undergo this form of training. I have wondered whether we should not consider the possibility of introducing short courses during vacations at which our girls can receive the necessary instruction so that they will know how to act in times of crises if these should occur. This desire on the part of our girls is not simply a matter of seeking adventure. It springs from heartfelt patriotism, a feeling of love for the fatherland; they feel they also want to make their contribution if necessary. I want to say at once that in wanting to do this we do not want to prejudice the primary function and purpose, the natural function of our girls. It is their function in the first place to be on guard at the cradle of our nation. The wife and mother must see to it that South Africa will have the young men to train for the defence of their country. We have no intention of attacking anybody else; our only endeavour is to defend our country and everything that is holy to us. That is why the girls of our country feel the need to be instructed and trained to be able to contribute their share. The hon. the Minister explained here last Friday why our submarines have been named after noble women from our history, women who played their part in South Africa. There was a time in the history of South Africa when women also played their part in the military field and made a contribution to safeguard South Africa.

If we are reading the signs of the times correctly, we do not foresee a conventional war. We are expecting something more in the nature of guerrilla warfare, more specifically terrorism. We have learnt that the terrorist does not attack people who are capable of defending themselves, that they declare war not on those who can defend themselves, but on the defenceless. Therefore I think the time has come for us to investigate ways and means of training the South African woman to defend herself and her family in a time of crisis and when her husband is away. I am asking for an investigation so that recognized women’s organizations may give their views on this matter. I think it should be practicable to train and instruct our girls over short periods, such as during vacations. They can join civil protection societies afterwards so that they can make a contribution in every area in which they happen to be. Our girls are definitely keen to receive this training, and therefore I plead with the Minister to have the matter investigated. On this basis we can build up South Africa to the maximum state of military preparedness of which we are capable, not for the purpose of attacking other countries, but for the purpose of defending ourselves in any crisis that may arise.

The Minister’s announcement of increased scales of pay for members of the Permanent Force is, of course, welcomed by us on this side of the House. These improved pay conditions will obviously ensure a more efficient and larger Permanent Force. This does not necessarily follow that we should have a smaller Active Citizen Force. On the contrary, I do not believe we should reduce the size and numbers of our Defence Force at all. However, with a stronger and larger Permanent Force our Active Citizen Force may possibly not require a lengthy period of training. But on this score, time will show.

I want to come to another problem, a problem which faces many of us during the recess; it is in connection with the calling up of our young men for training in the Active Citizen Force. We have selection committees or Selection Boards, moving from one school to the other, meeting the boys who are leaving school, discussing defence problems with them and finding out from them, what period will suit them best to do their training. This system of having select committees to interview the boys is a good system. The prospective trainees have to fill in forms stipulating the time that will suit them best for their training. We have, generally speaking, two groups of boys—those who want to go to university and those who do not. I have so often seen that boys who do not intend going to a university are called up to commence their training early in January, normally from the 7th, 8th or 9th January, and that boys who intend going to a university are called up only round about the middle of the year to start their training in July. This can cause a lot of inconvenience to our civilian public, and often, we as members of Parliament are confronted with the necessity of having to contact the Exemption Board in Pretoria, which, I must say, has been willing at all times to assist us. I want to pay tribute to the assistance which this board has given me personally in the past, but I believe it is quite unnecessary that such a problem should arise. What should be done is that those boys who stipulated that they want to go to university should be given preference for the training period commencing in early January, so that they can complete their period of training before the end of the year.

That is being done.

This is not the general rule. Those who do not want to go to university can then be called up later in the year.

That is the policy.

But if your policy was implemented it would assist us. It will assist those engaged upon the economic planning of our country, it will assist the academic training of our youths and it will assist young girls wishing to start training.

Mr. Chairman, one of the most important facets of our Defence Force is probably the fifth branch, i.e. civil defence. The fundamental principle of this has as its object the protection and safeguarding of our civilian population. Civilians are to an increasing extent becoming victims of war conditions. In earlier days this was not so much the case as it is to-day. It has become essential that that aspect of defence receive the necessary attention. Every country of the world sees to it that it is combat ready in that sphere, and that they do not become complacent, because complacency is the enemy of watchfulness. We in South Africa find ourselves in a fortunate position. Wars were last waged here many years ago, approximately 60 years ago. Although a natural disaster recently struck Port Elizabeth it is not often that such disasters occur in South Africa. For the public outside therefore there is no immediate threat. But this situation can change overnight. Then we must be prepared. We must therefore regard this as a major task and as a challenge, i.e. to make the public more aware, and have them take an interest in this aspect of defence and of our defence force. The reasons why there is such a lack of interest in civil defence is precisely because things are going so well for this country in which we are living. Things are going so well for us, and that is why people are in fact complacent. This afternoon I want, in particular to make an appeal to the Press to cooperate in the national interest on this facet of our existence. I feel that our newspapers are not devoting sufficient space to this matter, and that this extremely important aspect of our defence is not written about sufficiently. I want to ask the Press whether it is not possible for them to make place in their newspapers for a weekly column dealing with this matter. It is necessary for the public to be motivated. We have found that if the Press is asked to insert an advertisement in regard to certain activities, a small advertisement is hidden away somewhere in the newspaper. No prominence is given to such advertisements. I want to address a very friendly request to the Press to give more prominence to advertisements dealing with such activities. We have the same thing happening when reports on such activities are printed in the newspapers. When demonstrations are given in a certain area the Press is very reluctant to accept invitations to such functions to take photographs and publish reports so that the people can in this way be motivated. The newspaper men will know how to present a matter like this in the newspaper, so that the interested people can be roused in this way. Inter alia, far more prominence could be given to the passing out of firefighting groups. The Press could also have given more prominence to the matter when the State handed over 61 fire engines at a cost of R800,000 to local authorities. The same applies to our radio services. We think that we could make far more use of the radio to stir people’s interest. The local authorities can conduct more firefighting demonstrations, in conjunction with our war liaison officers and at the same time as our ward demonstrations, and here people in high authority can play a role when attending such functions.

I have wondered whether my hon. colleagues, the members of the House of Assembly, would not be interested in our getting together a team of members of Parliament on a firefighting course and using the publicity for this in the Press to activate people. In addition there are the provincial authorities who could take a greater interest and who could take the initiative in this connection. I feel that the Government has done what it possibly could. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will shortly make a certain statement because I know that this matter is occupying his serious attention. Turning our attention to those fire engines which were handed over, if those vehicles cannot be manned, they cannot be utilized, and that is why we need the manpower of volunteers who must take a greater interest. We are thinking of the industrialists and businessmen who could also give greater attention to encouraging their employees to take an interest in civil defence. There could also be a great deal more interest in the classes which can be attended by civilians, so that we will be prepared.

It is with appreciation that I also want to take cognizance of the study group which has been sent overseas, accompanied by a competent engineer, to investigate shelters. I think that a great deal can be done in this regard as well in South Africa. However, I want to express my thanks to all the volunteers who have already equipped themselves in this direction. I want to convey my thanks, particularly to the liaison officers who have done hard work and who have remained remarkably patient, the same applies to the officials in the Civil Defence section, who have up to now evinced a great deal of patience. Then there is something I am very pleased about, and that is that the Minister of Defence and the Department are co-operating with the Department of Education. I am thinking here of the youth defence programme into which investigations are being instituted and recommendations made in regard to the cadet training for young boys, the protection corps for young girls, first aid, firefighting, and rescue work, and the instruction and training of officers. I want once again, if these steps have been taken, to activate the public and did not succeed, to make an appeal to the Minister of Defence to consider making it compulsory. We ascertained as long ago as 1966, when it fell under the present Prime Minister as Minister of Justice, that he predicted that something like this could possibly take place.

In the course of my observations I shall refer to certain aspects of those matters to which the hon. member for Hercules referred, and I shall therefore not reply to him now. As far as the hon. member for East London (North) is concerned, I just want to say that it is not correct that prospective students are treated in that way. The position is that, if a prospective student indicates that he wants to attend a university, he has two alternatives. He can either choose to complete his year’s training immediately and is then called up in January, or he is afforded the opportunity of attending the Commando Combat School. In other words, the policy is that prospective students have a choice. If such a person wants to go to university immediately, he has to say so, and if it is at all possible he goes to the Commando Combat School. There he receives a very short basic training course and he performs certain services before the university starts. But he is not called up in the middle of the year.

But that often happens.

No, that is not so. It happens in a few cases where there is lack of clarity. The hon. member must take my word for it that in cases where this is brought to our notice, it is rectified immediately, but these people should after all have some knowledge of the provisions of the Defence Act; they should not sit still when they are called up in error. But a student has a choice; he may say “I want to complete my year’s training before I go to university.” This happens to thousands of young men who prefer to complete the year’s training first, and this is very good for them. I may tell the hon. member that statistics prove that young men who have undergone that year’s training, do better at universities than young men who have not undergone such training.

I agree on that point.

Any young man who says that he would like to go to university immediately and that he does not want to undergo the year’s training first, is given preference at the Commando Combat School.

That is the way it ought to be.

That is the policy, and if there are a few exceptions, they merely prove the rule.

What about technical college students?

Exactly the same applies to all prospective students. The hon. member shakes his head. I am telling him that this is the policy, but now he lays down the policy.

That may be the policy, but it is not always implemented.

Where there is lack of clarity, a few cases of this nature may crop up. But that is the policy. The hon. member himself helped to see this Act through, and now he quarrels with his own Act.

But the policy is not being implemented.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to approach this whole discussion from a different angle to-day. When we discuss Defence in general and the Defence Force in particular, there are a few basic premises we should bear in mind. The first of these is that the Defence Force and the defence of our country is not merely aimed at, in the first place, building up a war machine. I think the impression has been created in some of the speeches made here that we still have the old mentality which prevailed in South Africa, i.e. that a defence force and a defence policy are aimed at establishing a war machine only, and I think that we should accept right from the start that that is not the exclusive object of a defence policy and of a defence force. We are not looking for war. Those words of the hon. the Prime Minister have been recorded in the White Paper. We want to avert war as far as possible, and that is why the Defence Force is only in the last instance an instrument of war. But it has many other tasks in pursuance of our policy; it has many other service levels on which it makes its contribution to the country’s security and its defence. Viewed against the background of our ideal in South Africa, i.e. to bring about and maintain economic and political stability in our own country but also to help to ensure this in Southern Africa, our defence policy and a strong Defence Force constitute an important contributory factor towards guaranteeing and helping to guarantee such economic and political stability. That is why I agree with what one of the hon. members said here, i.e. that one needs economic power to establish a strong defence force, but, on the other hand, one also needs a strong defence force in order to ensure economic stability in the times in which we are living. That is why we are continually taking into account the needs of other State institutions as well as our own economic capacity when we determine the needs of the Defence Force. I think it was the hon. member for Hillbrow who referred to what we said in the White Paper in respect of the expenditure on defence in comparison with the national product. The hon. member should compare the expenditure on defence as against the national product in South Africa, with that of other countries. I have here a very lengthy list of countries in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia, and from this one sees that South Africa is one of the countries whose expenditure on defence in comparison with its national product is amongst the lowest in the world. In other words, the accusation cannot be levelled that we are spending unprecedented amounts which are disproportionate to our other economic needs.

I did not say that.

No, but the hon. member referred to it. I could not understand what he wanted to say by making that point. Immediately after the hon. member referred to that, he advocated a permanent force because, and this is all I could infer, he adopted the attitude that certain expenditure on defence would be inflationary. Material purchased abroad for the Defence Force, does not contribute to inflation. As certain expenditure on defence is unproductive, and not all such expenditure is unproductive, the hon. member advocated a bigger permanent force. However, it would cost R2½ million per year to maintain a permanent force battalion. What deterrent value does one permanent force battalion have? For this reason I say that the expenditure which is at the moment being incurred on the present basis in respect of our defence policy—i.e. a nucleus which consists of our Defence Force, in which the majority of our expert leaders have been included, and a national service system which maintains the Citizen Force and the commando systems and which is therefore based on the idea of a national army—does in actual fact only represent 2.5 per cent of the total national product in South Africa. The percentages in respect of other countries are as follows: Spain 2.3, Switzerland 2.4, Denmark 2.6, Belgium 2.8, Italy 2.9, Norway 3.7, Sweden 3.9, The Netherlands 4. West Germany 4.3, Greece 4.5, Yugoslavia 4.7, France 5.3, Britain 5.7, Portugal 6.7, Bulgaria 3, Rumania 3.1, Poland 5.4 and Russia 9.6. And so I could quote many other figures. Therefore I think that the amount which South Africa is spending on defence under our present system is by no means disproportionate to our national product. Due regard is in fact being had to South Africa’s economic needs and regard is also being had to what other State Departments require from us. Regard is also being had to what the Government has to do in respect of education and other important service levels of its activities. The Government is acting in a responsible manner as far as our expenditure on defence is concerned. In other words, the present system cannot be criticized as being excessively expensive. That is the point we made in the White Paper.

Thirdly, a strong, balanced defence force and in addition to that, as we are developing at present, an armaments production organization, which is more and more being geared for making South Africa self-sufficient in the sphere of important strategic materials, are important instruments in the hands of the Government, not only for preparing for war, but also for being used in improving and developing international relations. In this regard I want to give a few examples. In the first place, I want to refer to an article which was written recently—in March, 1969—and which appeared in a booklet, entitled “The United States Naval Institute Proceedings”. This important article was written by Vice-Admiral Schofield. He gave a survey of the position in the present circumstances. In this article he said the following—

He went on and referred to the increase in shipping. In this regard he said the following:

In other words, as a result of the industrialization in the world and, on the other hand, the awakening of Russia to the fact that it had to develop into an aggressive maritime power, the sea routes of the world have become so much more important. In this article the author deals with the idea that there are vacuums which have to be filled and that the world should not adopt an attitude of aloofness towards the necessity of facing up to the problems and dangers which are going to arise as a result of this development. The point I want to make is that a balanced defence force with its armaments production is a handy instrument in the hands of any government, and also in those of the South African Government, for establishing those international friendly ties and alliances which are necessary, especially as viewed from South Africa’s strategic position, to enable us to play a proper part in regard to this problem to which I have just referred. That is why the Defence Force paid naval visits to the Argentine and also to Australia, to which hon. members also referred appreciatively. That is why we have just proceeded to approving a R12 million project, which has already been started, i.e. to establish in South Africa maritime headquarters which will be amongst the most modern of their kind in the world. This project will enable to us to render a key contribution in the sphere of maritime defence. This is not only viewed from the angle of the security of South Africa, but also from the angle of being able to render a service to the shipping of the free world. That is why it is an important instrument for establishing ties of friendship with countries which have common interests with South Africa. In the second place, the fact that we have also made progress in respect of our armaments production, enables us to develop international ties of friendship, because in co-operating with other countries we acquire the know-how which we require in some cases. Organizations which have that know-how, make their investments in South Africa and in that way they transfer their know-how to our country. In this respect it is a handy instrument for establishing ties of friendship with other countries in the diplomatical sphere.

There is a fourth aspect. This is the contact which exists between the Defence Force staff —not only the combat officer, but also the experts in the Defence Force—and their counterparts elsewhere in the world. This renders an important contribution towards the strengthening of diplomatic relations with those countries with which co-operation is sought. In other words, the Defence Force is not merely a war machine, but it also serves the country in a much wider field. In conducting a debate on the interests of the Defence Force, we should not look upon it as an instrument which calls up a young man in order to train him for a few months. We should not look upon it as an instrument which teaches a young man how to use a rifle so that he may fight in a war. In this world in which we are living it has acquired a much more extensive task. In this regard it is also interesting to see to what extent we are bringing this idea home to influential circles. I am referring here to an article which was published on 28th February this year. This article was written by General S. L. H. Marshall, a world famous author, a strategist and a man whose opinion is held in high esteem internationally. He said—

In other words, in these circles of people who can speak with authority, the idea is gaining ground, for diplomatic reasons, that for reasons in the interests of trade and for reasons of greater co-operation in the free world, the contribution of the South African Defence Force is playing a progressively greater role. In that spirit we must consider the contribution we are discussing here to-day.

Fifthly, the acquisition and the application of modern weapons, as well as the acquisition of know-how for manufacturing such equipment in South Africa, are an important contribution to us, both scientifically and in the sphere of engineering. The young men who are being called up for a year, not only for military service, but also for national service, gain and acquire know-how in this process. Once they have completed their first year of service and return to civilian life, they are more mature and are able to make a greater contribution in the professions they are going to follow. That cannot be bought with money. I can illustrate to hon. members what is being done at the Commando Combat School. I can illustrate to hon. members what is being accomplished at our infantry schools, naval schools, air force schools and other military schools in the form of know-how and spiritual growth, through which those young men become an asset upon returning to civilian life. That cannot be bought with money.

But, in the sixth place, to-day our Defence Force is no longer based on the old ballot system, which only envisaged the training of the youth for military purposes. I hope that we have now reached this stage where even members of Parliament who are still using the word “ballot system” will stop doing so. Newspapers which are still writing about the “ballot system” should kindly wake up now. The ballot system came to a blissful end 14 months ago. We have a national service system. National service implies something which is different from the ballot system with its military training for a few months.

National service is, in the first place, service to the country in handling and helping to protect expensive equipment, for that equipment is the property of the nation. These goods to the value of R2,000 million which are at South Africa’s disposal in the form of sophisticated war and defence materials, are being maintained, cared for and protected by means of the national service system. In the second place, national service is a process whereby the young man is made more mature physically and spiritually and whereby he becomes a better citizen of his country. In the third place, national service is a system which creates opportunities through which young men acquire skill and know-how, which benefit them in the professions they follow later on. Furthermore, national service is the basis on which the participation of the entire nation is enlisted in defending the country. This is no longer the duty of a small group; the youth of the entire nation is involved. Sometimes when one sits listening to the speeches made not only in this House but often outside this House as well, when one sees how the attitude of some parents is that of trying to evade such national service for their child, and when one sees how the attitude of some employers is that of continually asking for such service to be postponed until that person is eventually married, then it astonishes one that this can be the attitude which we, who speak of faith in the future of South Africa, can adopt towards the national service system which this Parliament has introduced. National service is not a punitive measure. The hon. member for North Rand said that some people regarded it as a punitive measure. He knows that it is not a punitive measure. It is an opportunity through which the person concerned is made more mature and better equipped for serving his country. This is an opportunity he is given in the Permanent Force, under the guidance of experts in the Permanent Force, and an opportunity in the Citizen Force and in the commandos—as we are now re-organizing them into urban, industrial and rural commandos—to be able to make a daily contribution, in various spheres, for the sake of the nation he professes to love.

Now there are complaints about the periods. I am told by, inter alia, the hon. member for Durban (Point), that the last month or two go to waste and that the young man has nothing to do. But, surely, that is not true. That was the case under the old ballot system. This national service system has only been in operation for 14 months, and we have to a large extent eliminated this idleness. In a moment I shall refer to the fact that we have on a large scale started introducing new training processes, by which means we are keeping these young men busy. We have devoted attention to spiritual welfare and the use of leisure. As the funds become available, we keep these young men busy with positive work, even when they are not on duty. The complaint that they are idle towards the end of their year of national service is gradually disappearing altogether. We are still suffering from a certain mentality, namely that we are still thinking in terms of the old ballot system. This is my reply to hon. members who say that the national service system has now been in operation for so long that we should start thinking of reforming it. This is my reply: It has only been in operation for 14 months. It has by no means had a chance to prove what effect it will have. Give it another two years, and see what our youth will look like then, after 30,000 young men per year will have been handled under this national service system with what we shall have learnt in the meantime. Then we shall find a different attitude. I think that, instead of striking up the Lamentations of Jeremiah, it is the duty of parents, employers—I said this at an employers’ association the other night—and every member of Parliament in this House, because we drafted this Bill and placed it on the Statute Book together, and also the duty of the officers who may still be living under the influence of the old dispensation, to convey the message that national service is not the old ballot system and purely military training. National Service is a different attitude towards one’s country. I hope that with these few general observations we shall realize that what we should in actual fact see evolving before our eyes, is much more than a military power only. We should see an attitude of national service to the country evolving. Through that attitude of national service we are enhancing the ability of our country’s citizenry to defend themselves, as well as their know-how. By those means we shall be better able to take our place in the Southern Hemisphere, owing to our strategic position as guardian of the sea route around the Cape, if we approach this in a positive manner.

There are a few matters which were raised by hon. members and to which I want to refer specifically. In the first place, there were the hon. members for Mooi River and Middelland who referred to the question of unconventional warfare, or terrorism, as they called it. In the White Paper it is stated very explicitly that the Defence Force is not preparing itself for conventional warfare only, but we have already started to concentrate on a double-barrelled policy, i.e. to be prepared for conventional warfare but also to train our people for unconventional warfare. We have methods whereby we keep ourselves informed in respect of the latest approach to the terrorist onslaughts in the world. There are departments in our Defence Force who are making a special study of that, and answers are being sought to those methods and they are being passed on in the training. To-day we have five places in South Africa where young men are continually, on a full-time basis, receiving training in unconventional methods. I am not going to mention the names of those places, but geographically they are situated in such a way that they meet the problems with which a young man will have to cope. In this regard I may just mention that in the past two years the system of training has been changed so as to adapt to a possible threat. Training is being provided in fieldcraft, in concealment and disguise, which form part of the training in unconventional methods. There is the establishment of strong bases; tracking; the locating and destruction of enemy bases; active patrols; field-firing exercises; convoys in ambush drill. Every three years Citizen Force units are given the opportunity, in rotation, to take part in joint training exercises for the purpose of carrying out counter-guerrilla operations in rural areas. Where groups cannot be formed, for instance in regard to university units, they are trained and utilized at corps schools, as a corps, in individual exercises in possible infiltration areas. To give staff officers practice, regular signalling exercises are held at commands. Commandos must know their own respective areas like the back of their hands. Bivouac days have been done away with, and the same applies to passing-out parades upon the termination of bivouacs. At present they are undergoing seven days’ training per year in possible infiltration areas, and there rural commandos concentrate on fieldcraft, active patrols, tracking, ambush drill, field-firing, etc. Urban commandos concentrate more on urban internal security. In other words, at the Danie Theron Combat School, which we established in Kimberley and which has become the heart of our commando system, we are not only providing officers’ courses, but also preparing members of our commandos for these methods with which they will have to cope. And there they are given motivation. These people are informed as to why this has to be done. There are hon. members who reproach me for this; I shall deal with one of them later. They reproach me because we want to motivate people, because we want to give people an idea of why they must fight. But in these times in which we are living, one cannot treat people like mercenaries; one must give them an idea and tell them why they are being called upon to make these sacrifices, and what it is they have to resist.

We went further as far as the problem of waging unconventional warfare is concerned, and we adjusted our Air Force to this. It was done with the approval of the Government, because we do not take decisions on these things just like that, as if there were no planning behind it. There is a State Security Council which forms part of the Cabinet and of which the Prime Minister is Chairman. These proposals are submitted to that council from time to time, after they have been worked out. We adjusted our Air Force in order to obtain greater mobility, and not only that, but also to make it better prepared for the unconventional task. And our latest orders, the delivery of which we hope will begin shortly, is in fact aimed at enabling us to cope with the unconventional aspect thoroughly.

In this regard I should perhaps just refer to something else, and that is the question of our Air Force squadrons. If hon. members will bear with me, I think I must for the sake of the information which is needed, just communicate what the recommended improvement is in respect of our commando squadrons which have now been approved. The commando squadrons have now been transferred to the Air Force. Hon. members discussed this in the House last year. With effect from 1st April, 1969, the following changes will come into operation. The existing 12 squadrons will be uniform, with 20 pilots each, that is, the total strength will be 240 pilots. The annual allocation of flying hours per member is being increased from the present 33 hours as follows: In the Republic of South Africa, 48 hours, and in South-West Africa 50 hours. The allocation of the extra two hours for South-West Africa is in order to compensate for the long distances which have to be covered in order to attend training sessions. The tariff per flying hour to compensate the member for the use of his aircraft is being increased from the present R6 per flying hour to R10. Additionally, fuel and oil for authorized service is being provided free of charge by the State. The age limits for initial appointment are 18 and 54 years respectively. Normally the retiring age is 55 years, but members who comply with the medical requirements for a commercial pilot’s licence will be allowed to serve up to the age of 60. There is no problem in regard to private insurance cover for commando squadron aircraft; that is, during peace-time exercises normal peace-time coverage is sufficient. I think that in this way we have now placed the commando squadrons on a proper basis as well, and I want to express the hope that they will be able to play an important role.

Now, as for the hon. member for Durban (Point), he referred to the loss of manpower and stated that he found it disturbing. Of course it is disturbing for us as well, and I find it most disturbing, but I want to tell you that many of the people who leave the Defence Force do not leave because they are dissatisfied. Many of them leave because they are such an attraction for employers. I think it is a feather in the cap of the Defence Force that it produces people who are in such high demand. We simply cannot compete with the private sector. We are trying our best, and the Government has gone out of its way to accommodate me in certain proposals this year. But those people are not lost to South Africa. They are contributing their share with the knowledge they acquired in the Defence Force.

The hon. member referred to housing, and so, too, the hon. member for Pretoria (District). The hon. member for Durban (Point) then stated that if Public Works could not do it, it should be done under contract. But Public Works do not build houses. It is the Department of Community Development that builds houses. And the principle has been accepted that where we previously granted a quota of 60 per cent for the services, this now becomes a 100 per cent quota. This has been accepted by the Government, and we are able to start programming in order to cope with this housing problem. But secondly, the Government recently announced another housing scheme for public servants of which Defence Force members will also be able to make use. It is this joint scheme by the building societies which has been announced. Thirdly, the Department of Community Development is at present building 750 units at an amount of R9 million and is programming a further 650 at R7 million. In other words, we are getting on with the job. We are not accommodating our people in the old makeshift quarters the previous Government accommodated them in, which was the reason for the slums we had at our military bases. We are building decent houses. The hon. member for Durban (Point) then thought he had me in a corner; he said that he wanted to refer to two matters; he wanted in the first instance to refer to the question of selection boards. He said that he had put a question to me, and the question he had put to me was: “How many selection boards were appointed? To how many of these were persons appointed who were not members of the Permanent or Citizen Force or officials in the Public Service?” He then read out with great glee the reply I had supposedly given him, namely “none”. Why did the hon. member not read my reply fur ther?

But the reply was “nil”.

Why did he not read the reply further? For the reply went on to say—

The fact of the matter is that serving on most of the selection boards are commandants of the citizen force regiments, or commanding officers of commandos, or other officers. These selection boards represent the entire national life of the country; these are people who know their districts. But the hon. member chose not to read this out. He wants to create the impression that only Permanent Force people are serving on these selection boards. He cannot get away with that. I am satisfied that these selection boards are serving their purpose and that they will continue to function even more efficiently.

But in addition to that the hon. member also said that I was playing the censor. He said that the Sunday Times, his friend, asked me to make a certain statement on the purchase of aircraft. I shall tell him what aircraft those were, and I shall tell him the story better than he can tell it. They were Hawker-Siddeley aircraft which were purchased for two purposes, i.e. as communication aircraft and as aircraft by means of which certain persons in the public service could be transported. There were many good reasons why, when certain negotiations were in process and certain demands had been made, that news should not have leaked out.

But it was published overseas.

The hon. member must kindly give me a chance; then I shall tell him the story if he wants to hear it. At the beginning of the year, in January, Die Burger approached me and informed me that the news had leaked out to them and asked me whether they could publish it. I then said “no”, for very good reasons, and about four to six weeks later the Sunday Times phoned me one evening. I never complain when newspapers phone me. They sometimes phone me up to 11.30 and 12 o’clock at night when that hon. member is sleeping peacefully. I do not complain when the newspapers phone me; I am prepared to do this service. They asked me whether they could publish the news and for the same reasons I said “no”. At a certain stage when certain information became available to me I went to the Cabinet and consulted the Cabinet and said: “We are now able to publish this news; what must we do?” The Cabinet then decided that an official announcement should not be made but that we should release the news that we had obtained the aircraft. The news appeared the next morning in Die Burger of 7th March, but it also appeared in the Cape Times of the same morning, together with a photograph of the aircraft. The hon. member is now picking me out and saying that I play censor for one kind of newspaper only.

He does not read his own newspapers.

I cannot help it if the hon. member does not read the Cape Times. Perhaps it would pay him better if he read that newspaper instead of the Sunday Times.

He does not believe the Cape Times; he only reads Die Burger.

That same morning that news also appeared in a Transvaal English morning paper, as well as in a Transvaal Afrikaans morning paper. In other words, I did not withhold the news and give it to one section of the Press only. In any case it was not an official announcement. But there were very good reasons why it could not be divulged earlier. Let me say this to the hon. member now: From time to time I hold discussions with the National Press Union on which all newspaper companies are represented. I do not now want to read out in public letters which passed between us in my own defence. I have a good understanding with the Press Union and I accommodate them as far as it is possible, but there is certain information on Defence matters which they cannot publish without my permission and I intend carrying out the policy strictly.

Had the information on the purchase of the aircraft already been published overseas when you refused to allow it to be published here?

At that stage I did not know about information which had been publisned overseas, but let me tell the hon. member this: Sometimes information from South Africa is initiated abroad and then I am confronted with an overseas report and I am requested to comment on it. I do not walk into that trap. Sir, I am satisfied that this system works, although it entails a great deal of unpleasantness for me. If I could avoid these obligations I would do so gladly, and I am certain that if the heads of the Defence Force could avoid it, they would also do so gladly, but for the sake of the security of the country we must do this.

The hon. member for North Rand complained about street names in Voortrekkerhoogte. I did not know what the position was, but I made a few inquiries, and it appeared that the streets, the names of which were changed were Lord Roberts Road, Station Road and Kwagga Road. The new names are Andries Pretorius Road, Piet Relief Road …

And Lyttelton Road, and Fusilier Road?

What is wrong with giving the streets purely South African names?

Are they not part of our history?

No, Lord Roberts was not a South African, and what he stood for was not South African; it was un-South African.

That is the “verligte” outlook of the Nationalist Party.

The sooner we get rid of the Lord Roberts complex …

This is unity.

Order!

I said the sooner we get rid of the Lord Roberts complex in this country the better. Sir, if you name a submarine after Emily Hobhouse then people complain, but if you change the name of a street named after Lord Roberts then they also complain. What a mentality!

The hon. member for North Rand spoke about a Permanent Force Brigade. This is the same principle as the one advocated by the hon. member for Hillbrow, viz. a larger permanent force. I think that I have already, in reply to the hon. member for Hillbrow, pointed out the costs aspect. But I think there is perhaps something to say for our trying to fill the vacancies in our Permanent Force in some other way. Attention is being given at the moment to a proposal which will entail no extra costs. This is to see whether we cannot fill certain posts in the Permanent Force from the ranks of national servicemen for a limited time and in this way cope with certain problems, and in this way, too, maintain the Force on a proper basis. We are making a study of this at the moment and when the proposals are ready we will have to take a decision on them if necessary.

Sir, I am sorry that I now have to return to the hon. member for Simonstown. The hon. member for Simonstown made a speech here on Friday in regard to which there were quite a few verbal exchanges between him and me. I have in the meantime got hold of a copy of his Hansard report. This is What the hon. member said with reference to admission to the naval college at Gordon’s Bay—

I thereupon asked the hon. member, “What are you suggesting?” to which the hon. member replied, “I am suggesting that undue preference is given to them”. I thereupon said to the hon. member, “I shall take you up on that; you should be ashamed of yourself”. The hon. member then proceeded as follows—

The hon. member then proceeded to object to that.

Deal also with Saldanha; it is in the next paragraph.

As regards the meeting at Saldanha, I have already given an explanation in this House. On that occasion I outlined the rules of the Department of Public Works which have to be complied with in renting this type of hall. Has the hon. member not read that? Or do I have to keep on explaining to him? But I want to bring him back to his allegations about the naval college at Gordon’s Bay, because he is not going to get away from that this afternoon. I have here the curriculi of last year. Incidentally, another subject was added this year. I find that these boys have 504 periods within slightly less than three months: Seamanship, 224 periods; rules of the road, 60; navigation, 100; and communications, 120. This is the stiff course which these young men have to pass to be promoted to the position of midshipman within the space of a course of less than three months. Thereupon they take up duty on ships where they have to serve in key positions for the rest of the year. Therefore this is not child’s play. What is achieved by another midshipman over a longer period of time, these boys are expected to achieve in less than three months. Last year there were 17 of these boys, this year there are a few more than thirty. The Naval Chief of Staff informs me that intelligence tests were conducted on these boys by the staff of the National Institute for Personnel Research of the C.S.I.R. During the tests the staff members are not aware of the identity of the various candidates. I also have the results of the tests in front of me. Those results are grouped in order of merit by the National Institute for Personnel Research. The number of candidates was categorized in a total of 60 groups. The three sons of Ministers fell in the top 17 groups. These groups are regarded by the National Institute for Personnel Research as outstanding. Selection takes place on the basis of the results of the candidates’ basic training at the training institute of the Navy, on achievements at school in mathematics and physics, on qualities of leadership, on tests of the National Institute, and on grounds of medical fitness. They have to pass in all these tests before being admitted to this stiff course. I have here with me the list of candidates at the naval college this year. The hon. member for Simonstown deemed it fit to cast a reflection here in Parliament alleging that political influence had been used to gain admission to the naval college for the sons of colleagues of mine. By doing so the hon. member insulted not only the Naval Chief of Staff but also the officers who were concerned in this matter; and he cast a reflection on one of the finest institutions in this country. As I have said. I have the names of the boys here. The hon. member is now objecting to the presence there of three sons of Ministers, on the grounds of their intelligence and on the grounds of their achievements. All of them were either prefects or head prefects of their respective schools. All of them passed with either A or B symbols. I have particulars here of their achievements in mathematics and physics, and also of their basic training at Saldanha and at Simonsberg. I find that the percentages achieved by them ranged from 71 per cent to 95 per cent. The three sons of Ministers achieved 77 per cent, nearly 74 per cent and 84 per cent. What the hon. member omitted to say is that four boys of the school to which he went, Bishops, attend the college and that Bishops is the only school that has more than one boy at the college. But for that the hon. member is not grateful. He does not thank me nor does he recognize that as an achievement for his school. No, he preferred to make a petty attack on the integrity of colleagues of mine and on the integrity of the Naval Chief of Staff. What is more, the hon. member does not verify his facts before making an attack of this nature. As a result he cast a reflection on the National Institute for Personnel Research as well, because they did not know who these boys were when they selected them. I also have here the comments of this National Institute on the achievements of these boys. In all three cases their comment was “exceptional”. This then is the kind of pettiness we get from the hon. member, an hon. member who is representing a constituency in which the headquarters of the South African Navy are situated. As such he can, if he wants to do so, make a contribution on maritime affairs in this House, but he prefers to crawl about in the garbage-bins. I want to tell the hon. member now that unless he changes his attitude he must expect the naval officers concerned to think very little of him, because he in point of fact insulted them. Furthermore I want to say that I hope the hon. member will have the decency, and I think he has that in him, to get up here and to apologize to the Naval Chief of Staff. He need not apologize to me, but I ask him to apologize to the Admiral of our Navy and to apologize to the Naval officers who had something to do with this work, and to apologize to the naval college as well.

Has Albert apologized to the English yet?

Order!

If he does not do so, we know what label he will wear in future. I leave it at that.

I also want to refer to the complaint of the hon. member as regards Commando. In his complaint he wanted to suggest that we were making wrong propaganda in the publication Commando. I have here with me the December issue of Commando in which the reviews of these books appeared. The first book reviewed was “Battlefields to Harley Street”. The review on this book reads, “Surgeon with the Kaiser’s Army”. The second book is “Positiewe Nasionalisme” by Professor T. J. Kotzé. This is a book which is recommended as a handbook on political science at one of our largest universities. The hon. member, however, wants to reject it. One of our largest universities recommends it to its students, but he does not want me to bring it to the attention of the Defence Force. The third book is “To my son in Uniform”. This book was published in New York. The fourth book is “A Military Genius: De la Rey, Lion of the West”. The fifth book is “A World Famous Regiment: The Gordon Highlanders”. The review reads as follows—

The title of the sixth book is “Swaziland—Hulpbronne en Ontwikkeling”. The hon. member, however, selected only this one book and raised objections to that here. I want to tell the hon. member that he is capable of achieving greater heights than this. He is capable of doing something better. Try it next time. I now leave the hon. member at that. I hope he will avail himself of the opportunity this afternoon to tender his apologies. I am not asking him to apologize to me, but to apologize to the esteemed officers whom he insulted.

I now come to the hon. member for Green Point. I have given instructions for a careful study to be made of the speech delivered by the hon. member as it was a positive contribution. I do not agree with everything he said, because in my opinion the present system of training is working well. Although regiments meet as units only once every three years, there still are the three days per annum for which units may be called up for specific purposes. If we weigh up all the arguments, I do not think that we shall find that the old system is better than the present one. On the contrary, I think the present system is better. But I agree with the hon. member that there should be a regimental tradition just as there should be a tradition in commandos. The hon. member will concede that this will depend to a large extent on the commanding officer and on the headquarters and the spirit prevailing in those headquarters. For that reason we obtained a concession from the Provincial Administrations in respect of, for example, the commandos. Commandos, too, have now been placed on the list of bodies to which contributions may be made by local authorities for the construction of headquarters. South-West Africa has also agreed to this. I think this is a step in the right direction. I trust that the public as well as local authorities will also provide assistance so as to enable regiments to acquire headquarters. This will be instrumental in building up the regimental spirit, the spirit of unity. They should meet there. I do not think, however, that we shall be able to revert to the old system in order to achieve this object. I shall nevertheless give the hon. member the assurance that we shall study his speech with a view to seeing what we can learn from it. I know the hon. member is interested in the question of formal dress at functions. This is a matter which has not been finalized. Many things are implicated in this. I hope he will give me more time to reach finality in this matter.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet referred to the position of the commandos. I can only tell him that 10,000 members are allocated to the commandos at present under the national service system. Eventually the commandos must profit from this. I know that there are a few commandos who are struggling because of geographic circumstances, but sometimes also as a result of inefficient commanding officers. If a commanding officer is equal to his task, even if the commando is spread over a large area, things will go well with such a commando. I may just mention one commando, without giving the name of its commanding officer. Just go to the De Aar Commando and see what is being accomplished in that vast area under the leadership of a man who knows what he wants. There is also the Highway Commando in Natal. Go to the commando of that commanding officer and see what he is accomplishing. Where there is a will on the part of a commanding officer, there is life.

Hon. members also referred to the necessity of mobility. The White Paper deals with the purchase of transport aircraft which will be delivered soon, as well as with the acquisition of the Super-Frelons for our Air Force. This will bring about a large degree of mobility. It also deals with the acquisition of armoured cars for the Army, which will increase the mobility of the Army, and helicopter-carrying ships for our Navy. At the moment we are considering the acquisition of fast craft which will also increase the mobility and the striking power of the Navy.

I want to conclude by referring to the question of civil defence and the training of young women to which hon. members also referred. I want to say at once that the Civil Defence Section has already done good work in South Africa. I just want to refer to a few examples of what has already been accomplished. The Civil Defence Section has already instructed as many as 71,000 people in elementary first aid. In urban areas 827 volunteers have been instructed in fire-fighting. In certain centres subsidies have been allocated to 38 local authorities for the acquisition of fire engines. In 13 cities which have area controllers, surveys of means of combating emergency conditions have been completed. This happens in co-operation with local authorities and other Government bodies. Furthermore, we have had a study made of the question of an institution at which leaders for Civil Defence may be trained. I have made public pleas that our young women should be trained in this connection. We caused investigations to be made into 21 places in the country to see whether those places met the requirements. We started with a building situated near Dunnottar. We found that that was not suitable for various reasons. I do not want to go into that now. We felt that the training centre should be situated as near as possible to a military base but yet not adjacent to such a base. We said that the institution should be situated in an area in which the young women could have a social life on a good level. After all, we cannot keep our young women in the field. This is the launching of a new scheme. Whether or not it will be a success, will depend to a very large extent on how it is launched. A countrywide investigation for suitable facilities was conducted. Eventually we found two places which, in our opinion, will enable us to meet the requirements we set. The first place is the old school for domestic science at Potchefstroom. This, however, will only be available after 1972. In the meantime we are conducting negotiations with the Provincial Administration in this regard. No decision can be taken before all this has been finalized. I personally conducted negotiations with the Cape Provincial Administration as well and in that way found the second place for this purpose, i.e. the school for domestic science at George. This is a beautiful institution with large grounds. It is modern and has all the conveniences required for giving these young women their training in proper surroundings.

In whose constituency in this institution situated?

In my constituency, and in a very fine constituency at that! The idea is that the Cape Provincial Administration will make provision for the girls who are attending that school at present in decreasing numbers, at technical high schools and other schools in George. These facilities will be made available as from an agreed date next year, but not during this year. What is of importance, however, is that it is not costing the Department of Defence millions of rand to erect a building like this, as the State owned these buildings and as the facilities are available. The idea is for the young women to be given training in first aid, home nursing, driving and operating ambulances, elementary fire-fighting, handling of communication systems, organization of civil defence, physical culture, the handling of fire-arms, self-defence without arms, mental care, general office administration or any other aspect which may be required to round off the training course of leaders. We want to begin small and the idea is for us to train leaders who may be allocated to organizations such as the Noodhulpliga, the Red Cross and the St. John’s Ambulance. We do not want a duplicating Defence Force, we only want to inspire the existing voluntary organizations with young women who have been given a good grounding in performing these tasks. The idea is for this spirit to be spread gradually in this way throughout the population. I hope that the first institution will be such a success that we shall be able to proceed to the establishment, in keeping with the plea delivered by the hon. member for Potchefstroom, of a second institution of this nature at Potchefstroom. Large numbers should never be involved in this training programme; the intention should rather be to produce efficient leaders of quality to leaven, feed and strengthen existing organizations. At the moment we are subjecting the Civil Defence Section to an inspection by the Public Service Commission. The object is the proper incorporation of this section into the Defence Force. The Chief of the Civil Defence Section, General Retief, made a study tour to Europe so as to acquaint himself with the latest methods of civil defence. As he makes suggestions, these suggestions will be considered. However, I want to emphasize at once that the Civil Defence Section should not be dependent on the State for its success, but should be dependent for its success on the voluntary service the civilian population is prepared to render to this Section.

Now I want to conclude. I think I have replied to most of the points which were raised. The question which was raised here of the ability of the Air Force to effect air delivery still remains; I can think of another question which was raised by the hon. member for King William’s Town, i.e. that of overseas courses. We are not opposed to such courses, but we should not send our people to attend such courses unnecessarily. We shall watch the position, however, and as the need may arise, we shall send people to attend such courses, but we shall not incur unnecessary expenditure. I want to ask hon. members to forgive me if there are any points to which I have not replied.

I should like to make a request here. On the basis of the spirit which prevailed in most of the speeches, it is clear that we are in agreement as regards the broad approach of the defence policy; it is clear that we believe in a strong Defence Force. As I outlined at the outset, however, I hope that all of us also believe that the Defence Force has broader tasks to fulfil than that of being a mere military machine. I hope that the hon. members will help me to win the friendship of parents and the public for the Defence Force in cases in which such friendship still does not exist. I hope hon. members will not pay too much attention to petty gossip which is spread from time to time. If there are complaints hon. members feel can be proved, bring those complaints: if a young man is being victimized because he is complaining legitimately, he must repeat his complaints and then action will be taken against those who are victimizing him. I have this confidence in the Supreme Command, but I hope that we shall also evince a spirit of appreciation towards the Commandant General who is in charge of what is one of the largest organizations in this country to-day. I hope that we shall evince a spirit of appreciation towards the Defence Force Chiefs, the Chief of the Combat Forces, the Chief of Maritime Defence, the Chief of the Army, the Chief of the Air Force, the Chief of Defence Staff and their heads of sections. I hope the spirit will be born in our nation that we shall stand by our Defence Force because we know that our Defence Force stands by our nation.

Firstly, I want to express my appreciation towards the hon. Minister of Defence for the way in which he made his reply and for the spirit in which he did so.

As Coloured Representative I should like to confine myself briefly to that division in our Defence Force known as the Coloured Corps. As a person who takes an interest in, and who must take an interest in the history of the Coloured population, and also as a person who knows a little of the history, it was my privilege to observe the public appearance of the Coloured Corps during the inauguration of the State President. I think that any one of us who also at one stage did a bit of parade bashing on the parade would agree that on that day with the inauguration of the State President the Coloured Corps acquitted itself of its task very well indeed. During the first week of January I had the privilege of receiving an eminent visitor from Western Germany in my home. He was interested in visiting the places of interest in South Africa. Inter alia, I took him to Eerste River, to the training camp of the Coloured Corps, I want to place on record here to-day that I wish that I, as did the hon. member for Durban (Point) and the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition, When I underwent my training could have done so for just a little while at such a well-equipped training camp as that one. The visitor from Western Germany told me that that camp was equal to the best American military camps and training centres in Western Germany. It was a privilege to visit the camp, but it also with a touch of nostalgia that I did so. I want to pay tribute here to the commander in chief of the Coloured Corps, specifically Commandant, now Colonel Bredenkamp who had to take his leave as a result of his promotion. In view of my interest and my knowledge of what is happening there I want to state here that the hon. the Minister can take cognizance of the fact that he will seldom come across an officer who did his work with such absolute dedication as Colonel Bredenkamp did at Eerste River. He had an aptitude for the task entrusted to him, he knew how to appoint his officers, he knew how to work with the people he had to deal with. He was not a commanding officer, but a father: he was regarded by the men of the Coloured Corps as a father. I want to pay tribute to him here and express the hope that his further career will be a good one. I also want to wish his successor everything of the best. When one has the experience it is a remarkable phenomenon to note how the Coloureds naturally take to military training. This fact is proved by the successes to the Cape Corps, namely the Coloured Corps. Coloureds are good seamen and it is encouraging to know that there are some of our warships to-day that are manned by Coloured seamen. I do not think the commander of the South African Fleet will have any objections if I mention this, because he has experience of this kind of Coloured seamen which he gained when he was commander of the Gamtoos in the Mediterranean. The point I want to come to is that there are so few people who realize What role the Coloureds have played in the military history of South Africa. It dated back to the time of the Dutch East India Company. Attention was focused prominently on the Coloured for the first time on 14th January, 1806 at the battle of Blouberg. It is an established fact that the greatest losses suffered by the English when they landed at Blouberg in 1806 were suffered as a result of the artillery of the Malay slaves, which forced them to lower their boats so far from the beach that many of them overturned, as a result of which many of their soldiers drowned. It is on record that it was the Pandoers of that time who fought in the battle of Blouberg and who comprised General Jansen’s rearguard troops when he had to fall back. After the Second Occupation of the Cape the English took over and the Coloured unit then became the Cape Corps. If one is interested in this it will be an established fact that for 80 years subsequent to that the Cape Corps comprised the garrison on the eastern border. They happened to be the first soldiers to wear khaki uniforms in South Africa. The English were still wearing red jackets with white webbing. In the Second Anglo-Boer War there has been a great to do about how the English allegedly abused Coloured soldiers but so little is said about the Coloureds in the Transvaal and the Free State who fought to the bitter end alongside the Burghers. There descendants are to this day still living near Pretoria at Onverwacht. Colonel Erasmus of Warmbaths is living testimony to this. The Coloureds also fought in the First World War. They do not commemorate Delville Wood but the battle of Square Hill in Palestine in 1915. When General Allenby marched in triumph through Jerusalem the Coloureds took the place of honour behind his white horse. He said at the time: “No man can have the honour to command men of better fettle than the men of the Cape Corps of South Africa”. In the Second World War the Coloureds played their role on behalf of South Africa. I want to inform the hon. Minister that there is a tremendous amount of interest among the Coloured population in the Coloured Corps. Our Coloured fellow citizens are westerners by background, westerners by origin and are also potential westerners. They must be set alongside the Whites. Potentially the Coloureds are brown Whites. Their potential is the same. If we follow a policy of differentiation in regard to the Bantu and we regard the Coloureds as being of that extraction as mentioned by D. S. Marais in The Cape Coloured People, 1652 to 1937, namely—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the end of his speech the hon. the Minister appealed for a spirit of co-operation in the building up of our defence forces. I want to say to him that if he makes speeches such as he made here this afternoon, it is going to be very difficult indeed to give him that sort of support. For the first hour or so of his speech he rehashed again the debate on the Defence Bill and what we have said before. We agree and have no argument about that.

On Friday the hon. the Minister attacked my colleague, the hon. member for Simonstown, and he offered to make certain information available to him. On Friday the hon. member for Simonstown said, after dealing with the question, that all the Minister had to do this afternoon was to say that the hon. member for Simonstown must not make insinuations which are incorrect and that he has proof positive that each of these Ministers’ sons were chosen only on the basis of merit. Instead of doing what he promised on Friday, namely making available to the hon. member for Simonstown the information, the hon. the Minister launched a third attack and a most personal attack on the hon. member for Simonstown. I believe this is not the way to sort out our differences. If we have differences let us attack each other, but let us do so in a different spirit from that which the hon. the Minister used this afternoon. Let us do it in a different spirit from that which he used when he was dealing with the question. I link this indirectly with the question of national unity, of equal treatment in the Defence Force of the two language groups and his attitude when he dealt with the renaming of streets in Voortrekkerhoogte. This country and nation of ours have a history full of pain, bitterness and division. But if we are going to take out of that history and enshrine in our Governmental institutions only the things which one section wants, or one section likes, one is not going to create that spirit, which I believe the hon. Minister wants in the Defence Force. Why could we not have had, if we are enshrining pre-Union history, some of the heroes of pre-Union history in the military field who fought at Isandhlwana and at Rorke’s Drift and in other areas of South Africa? Instead of this we do away with harmless names like Lancaster Road, Cavalry Road, and Fusilier Road. They are all renamed with regard to one section of the people only and in connection with one part of our history. And then the hon. the Minister pleads for national unity.

He and other hon. members have said that the morale of the Defence Force has never been higher. I want to say that there are rumblings and I therefore plead with the hon. the Minister not to let us go back to what is known as the Erasmus-era of the Defence Force. There are rumblings of side-tracking of people into dead-end jobs, of premature retirements of others, of rank-jumping in promotions, of meteoric rises, of the promotion of persons who failed the Lieutenant’s to Captain’s course and who failed “taaltoetse”. These are the rumblings and I appeal to the hon. the Minister not to let a spirit which has virtually disappeared from our Defence Force, the spirit of sectionalism and discontent over alleged discrimination, creep back into our Force. Our forces until recent years had been broken down to almost nothing. It is admitted in the White Paper that in 1960 we had virtually no Defence Force. It has been built up in the last nine years into a Force in which all South Africans could have a place, in which all South Africans felt they were wanted and needed and had a contribution to make. But in recent months, over the last year or so, latent grumbles and latent grouses have been creeping back. I am not going to deal with personalities. I am not going to deal with instances. I am merely going to plead with the hon. the Minister not even to let a suspicion or a semblance of a suspicion appear in our Forces that we are going back to the days of preferences in promotion; because when there are these meteoric promotions they have a reaction on the long-established members of the Forces, and the Minister knows it. I do not have to go into details. The same when we talk of bilingualism. I know it is the Minister’s intention and I know it is the intention of the Army, but do not let us bluff ourselves about it. Do not let us, immediately anyone suggests that anything is wrong, get up on our high horses and blow our tops. Because that is what the Minister does. As soon as there is any criticism, as soon as there is anything except praise, it is immediately denied and the Minister gets angry and excited about it. Look at the things he has replied to this afternoon. He has either denied them or he has ignored them. He has denied that housing is going slowly. We quoted figures, but the Minister comes back and says he has all these houses being planned. He did not deal with our appeal for Citizen Force servicemen to be paid Permanent Force pay for their short camps. He did not refer to the reference to employers making up the difference after the Government had played its part. He did not deal with the mid-year call-up, and so on. But when there was criticism from our side the Minister was up on his feet immediately attacking violently, and personally in many cases, because we dared to criticize. Let us accept that this side of the House wants to help the Minister; it wants to help the Government. It wants to play its part in building up a truly South African Defence Force. But I plead with the Minister not to do things like he did in regard to the street names, in regard to his reaction to everything we criticized, but to allow us to play our part in building up confidence in a truly South African Force. The hon. the Minister concluded his speech by saying: If you have complaints, bring them to me. But on Friday he dragged into this House a complaint which I had brought privately to the department and which I had not publicized, one of many complaints I have brought privately and without publicity and which have been dealt with. But the Minister chose to bring it into this House and to use it as a basis for attacking me. Yet at the end of his speech he says we must come to him if we have complaints and he will investigate them. Where do we stand? Do we come to him, so that if it is not proven he can use it to attack us on? He knows the seriousness of that particular complaint. Did he expect me to sit on it? It was brought to me by one of my colleagues.

I asked you to give me the source of your information.

The Minister knows that cannot be done. The hon member for South Coast gave him the circumstances and the facts, and I am not prepared to break a pledge of secrecy on any provocation. I gave him a photostat of the letter. The only thing which was excluded from it was the address. It was a photostat of the original letter, even to the signature, the name of the person who signed it. I could do not more than that, and I am not prepared to break my promises not to disclose facts. But the Minister must not ask us to bring problems and then use them to attack us. I want to say this again, that we have built up over the years a proud military tradition. It went downhill for a period but it has built up again. Now, let us try to maintain that spirit and that level of morale, of confidence and of co-operation in our Forces which I believe we had achieved and to a large extent maintained. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Durban (Point) raised quite a number of complaints here. He said there was a time when things were better in the Defence Force, then we had a downhill period, then matters improved again, and now he is sorry to see that we are once again returning to what he calls the “Erasmus era”. Sir, what did the Erasmus era in the Defence Force look like? Does the hon. member for Durban (Point) remember what that era looked like, and does he remember what matters looked like prior to that era? Does he remember the period when there was the least tolerance in the history of the S.A. Defence Force? That period was followed by the administration of the late Minister Erasmus, when he had to take over and reorganize the Defence Force and build up the morale again, and had to build up unity. Is the hon. member for Durban (Point) reintroducing his British imperial traditions to break this down again? Are the British imperialistic traditions to be reintroduced into our Defence Force? [Interjections.] What did the Defence Force look like in the days of Minister Erasmus? Do you know what experience he had? [Interjections.]

Order!

It is a pity that we have to go back in history now, but if the hon. member wants to take that course, we can meet him. Conditions in the Defence Force were such that a Minister who was known to be coming could enter an officers’ mess and walk out at the other side without one single officer rising. That is the spirit which prevailed in that period. That is the British imperial tradition of which they are so fond, which prevailed in the Defence Force at the time. He should not complain now that we have, for the first time, a sense of unity, which offends him. Now that we have gone to so much trouble in building up that unity, and now that this hon. Minister has gone out of his way to build up unity in the Defence Force, they come forward with these petty attacks such as those made by the hon. member for Simonstown. And this afternoon the hon. member for Durban (Point) came to his assistance and tried to defend those petty attacks. If this is to be an example of the way in which Defence matters are debated, i.e. as the hon. member for Durban (Point) put it, then we are quite happy to satisfy him and to meet him on the same level. At least it is a level on which he feels at home. I was surprised that he rose to such a high level on Friday, but now he has returned to his traditional level, and we can meet him on that level. l[Interjection.]

I want to return to the question of the sons of Ministers to which the hon. member referred. I was privileged to obtain information on a previous occasion, without asking for it —I did not poke my nose into those matters as the hon. member for Simonstown did; I do not know on whose authority he undertook that inspection—but I obtained information on a certain occasion, and it so happens that there are a number of men in the Defence Force who are being trained to-day and it so happens that there are Ministers’ sons among them who are responsible for some of the best results and who represent some of the most select material that we have in South Africa. I met them personally, and I know about the difficult position in which a certain officer found himself one one occasion when a son of an eminent person achieved such brilliant results in his military training that that officer was at a loss as to what he should do. He was concerned, on the one hand, that if he were to do justice to this young man, it would seem as though he wanted to highlight the achievements of this young man for the sake of a certain person; but on the other hand, he said, he was having trouble with his conscience because this man’s achievements were such that he was entitled to special honours, and he felt that his extraordinary achievements should be judged according to their worth. That officer decided—to my mind quite rightly—to award this young man a distinction which he had deserved purely on merit. Sir, that young man was the son of the hon. the Minister of Defence; he is a person who achieved quite outstanding results when he underwent his training. Now I want to ask hon. members, if a young man does well in our Defence Force, whether he be the son of a Minister or an M.P. or not, is he not entitled to being treated each according to his own merit? These men are also eager to serve their country in the SA. Defence Force. These young men work hard and are devoted to their task. Must they be penalized because they happen to be the sons of Ministers or of other members of this House? I think this is the most unfair thing we could do, not to the parents, but to those young men who work extremely hard and are devoted. I know some of them personally and I know how much effort they are putting into it and I know how dedicated they are. I think the hon. member for Simonstown was very unfair towards those young men and their friends, and I therefore think the hon. member for Durban (Point) was just as unfair in defending that kind of attitude.

I am not going to detain the House for long, but I cannot allow the hon. member for Durban (Point) to get away on this note. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban (Point) this afternoon that since I had to take over this portfolio a few years ago I have gone out of my way to maintain a very good spirit in the Defence Force.

I admit it.

I went out of my way to consult the Opposition and to take them with me and let them share with me on a fair basis. Now some hon. members opposite have been guilty of conduct of which he is ashamed, but he must not try to lay that at my door. I did not drag the Naval College through the mud in this way. It is the hon. member for Simonstown who cast a reflection on the Naval Chiefs of Staff, and I came to their defence. Now the hon. member says I should merely have said that it was done on merit. I presented the facts this afternoon, because I had said I would have the matter investigated. Now I want to tell the hon. member something more, and that is that these Ministers had not known that their sons were going to the Naval College before those boys were notified. Is the hon. member prepared to accept that from me?

Yes.

I think the hon. member should have got up here and should have told the hon. member for Simonstown: “Please, I am asking you in public not to use such language and not to slander the Navy in this way”. That is what the hon. member should have done this afternoon, but instead he attacked me. After all, I did not drag in these things. The hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself.

And why does he choose Parliament in which to do it?

The hon. member also referred to the question of street names. I want to tell him that there are many street names in Voortrekkerhoogte which commemorate the names of figures that took part in two World Wars on South Africa’s side. But if the hon. member thinks that for the sake of his co-operation I should honour the name of Lord Roberts, then he has another guess coming.

And the others?

Lord Roberts was an enemy of this country. Lord Roberts trampled people in this country underfoot. Lord Roberts wanted to destroy the soul of a nation in this country and I will not honour him, not as long as I am Minister of Defence. Take that from me. I am prepared to honour Dick King; I am prepared to honour Dan Pienaar. I am prepared to honour great military leaders who acted for South Africa in the history of this country, whether we agreed with them or not, but I am not prepared to honour South Africa’s enemies. The hon. member can take that from me this afternoon. If his co-operation is dependent upon that, he can withdraw it. Let us understand each other clearly. I am not prepared to sell my history and to crawl before enemies from the past. In order to get in his blow at me, the hon. member did something now which was also done by the hon. member for Simonstown a few days ago. It is something which they regularly do when they run out of arguments, and that is to refer in a derogatory way to a previous Minister of Defence. They had their differences with him and I do not take it amiss of them. But while the hon. member is so bent on honouring the history of South Africa, why does he not acknowledge that that previous Minister of Defence was also the man who put our navy on its feet.

And who won Simonstown!

Why not acknowledge that he was the man under whose leadership Simonstown came to the disposal of South Africa? Why not acknowledge that he was the man under whose leadership the Academy was established, where the cream of our officers are trained to-day? Why not acknowledge that he was the man who came forward with the idea of gymnasiums, by means of which he created new interest for the Defence Force among the youth? Sir, he is dead; let him rest. Whenever they lack arguments, they come along and drag his dead body across the floor of the House. I say to the hon. member that he was my friend up to his death. That does not mean to say that I agreed with everything he did. But on the other hand I want to tell the hon. member that if he wants to practise politics in this way, we shall also go back in history, but then we shall not be serving the cause of unity in the Defence Force or in South Africa. The hon. member must watch out; this sort of thing can come from both sides. I also appeal to the hon. member to call his people to order. Sir, members on this side of the House do not insult Naval officers; they do not insult Air Force or Army officers.

No insult was meant.

The hon. member spoke of “rumblings”. What does he mean by that? Can he bring me one single officer who was passed over in promotions? Can he bring me one case in which promotions did not take place in accordance with the approval of the Supreme Command? I challenge him. There are not only Afrikaans-speaking officers, but also English-speaking officers serving on the Supreme Command. I challenge him to bring me one single case of promotions or appointments with which I have to deal and which does not have the approval of the Supreme Command. He talks about “rumblings”; what does the hon. member want to suggest by that? Does he want to stir up suspicion? The hon. member must be careful before loosening his brakes.

It came from people who spoke to me personally.

People spoke to him personally, just like the one who spoke to him personally about that decent young instructor of ours, and when we appointed a board of inquiry we found that the very reverse was the case. I am asking the hon. member for the source of his information, but he does not want to disclose it to me. The hon. member can come to me with any complaint and then tell me that he cannot disclose the source of his information to me, and then he expects me to take notice of it. If I take no notice of it, if I refuse to take notice of gossip, then the hon. member says that I must watch out; that their co-operation is involved. Who does the hon. member think he is frightening? Let us drop this childish behaviour. Let the hon. member rather call his own colleague, the hon. member for Simonstown, to order. Let him rather follow the example set to him by the hon. member for Green Point, a man with military knowledge, who makes his contribution and voices his cricitism here in a decent way. Let the hon. member follow the example of the hon. member for North Rand, who has unfortunately been replaced as chairman of the Defence Group by that hon. member. I say “unfortunately”, because he would have made a better contribution. If the hon. member wants to fight, let me tell him that I have no desire to have trouble in connection with the Defence Force, but if the hon. member wants to fight, I will fight back for the sake of my self respect. Let us understand each other very clearly this afternoon. I stand for the equal treatment of Afrikaans- and English-speaking South Africans in the Defence Force. I go out of my way to win the confidence of Afrikaans- and English-speaking officers. I go out of my way to obtain the co-operation of both National Party and United Party Officers, and I have it. I am respected in those circles to-day because I have gone out of my way to do that. Therefore I say to the hon. member that he must not think he will scare me with great gesticulations and with the sort of voice which he raised here at the end of the debate. He will not succeed in doing that.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 22,—Tourism, R1,825,000:

Mr. Chairman, once again we come to our annual review of the Tourism Vote. I may say that in the past we have found year after year that the position has remained fairly static. The Minister was a little upset, I think, last year and even the year before, when I called the Department of Tourism the Cinderella department. My own opinion is that it has not moved very much away from that position. It is true that you have a Hotel Board under the Minister, a board which is doing good work and has done very good work. At the moment one cannot say what the actual end-results will be. Of the hotels which have applied for grading, I think approximately 450 have now been graded, leaving a large number which for various and good reasons have not yet received their grading. Then there is Sa-tour, which deals with certain aspects of tourism, endeavouring mainly to bring people to this country from overseas and from neighbouring territories. The internal situation, as I understand the position, has been left to the Department of Tourism.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal first with the hotel position. There are many obstacles in the way to getting this industry on a sound footing, particularly when we bear in mind what everybody is saying and what everybody is welcoming, and that is that we are entering the Jumbo Jet age, when we are going to bring numbers of people to this country. The question is whether we are going to be in a position to deal with them if we get them. I think it was Mr. Du Plessis who said, When speaking at the conference, that we could deal with them and that there were very few or no problems. As far as I can ascertain, everybody else who has spoken on this subject is very worried and uneasy about the question whether we are making adequate preparations and whether we are going to be able to deal with this situation. Let me take one item as example. The hotel trade experiences great labour troubles, and very little seems to be done to sort this out. The Minister will no doubt say to me that that is not his department, but what the Minister does in regard to tourism affects almost every single other department. He should be the catalyst that causes things to happen, but instead of being the catalyst, he is always passing the buck. Whenever you ask him whether he can do this or that bis reply is that it does not fall under his department. He should be able to consult them and get something done in the interest of the tourist industry. I quote a letter that has been handed to me by a colleague, the hon. member for Hillbrow, which sums up this particular problem very adequately. It says—

He says that in Johannesburg there is a backlog of 18,000 beds and that there are no plans available at the moment to remedy this situation—

I think this adequately describes this problem. This is a matter which should be given urgent attention. There are many other problems in the tourist industry which also deserves urgent attention. There is a sense of unease and disquiet; there is a sense of urgency that something must be done to promote this industry and to put it on the right footing. Unlike the Minister, I have no doubt in my mind that, properly handled in the future, the tourist industry can bring in revenue that will fill the gap that is left by the diminishing gold-mining revenue. The Minister was reported to have said in a speech that he did not believe for a moment that tourism as a source of earning foreign exchange, could ever equal the gold-mining industry.

That is quite different from what you said a moment ago.

Of course it is different, because the hon. member is right.

“To equal the gold-mining industry,” not to fill the gap.

I go further and say that if a dynamic policy was followed with regard to the tourist industry, it could equal the gold-mining industry. It seems to me that the Minister almost has a feeling of pessimism in regard to this portfolio. He has occupied this portfolio for six solid years and we feel that the position to-day is still practically what it was when he took over. I think the first and immediate objective must be to close the gap between what we earn as a tourist country from tourists coming into the country and what we expend and export in connection with South African tourists going overseas. In that regard there is a gap of R10 million or R12 million. It should be our first and immediate objective to close that gap. The next and the long-term objective should be to try to use the tourist industry to augment the diminishing earnings of the gold-mining industry. Time and again we have made various suggestions to the Minister and one is almost in despair as to what to suggest next. This report of Satour is an interesting, competently and efficiently framed document as far as it goes, but obviously it does not deal with the problems of tourism. Under “Important Events” it says—

I mention this because it seems to me singular that it should be an important event. I think the Minister should be in constant consultation with that board. He should be at most of its meetings and discuss matters with them to see what can be done, because it is a difficult situation which exists here. As a matter of fact, it seems to me there should be a subcommittee of the Cabinet because every Cabinet Minister has something to do with tourism. If there is a sub-committee of the Cabinet things may be co-ordinated and something may be done. There is the Minister of Planning, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Economic Affairs, even the Minister of Bantu Administration—all these have something to do with tourism. If we have such a sub-committee of the Cabinet something may be done. Where are the surveys? Last year the hon. Minister poured cold water over the suggestion that there should be surveys. He discounted the idea of surveys from outside and said that they would do it internally but that it would take a long time. Well, I think it has to be done much quicker than that. [Time expired.]

Unfortunately the time at my disposal does not permit me to react to the hon. member for Von Brandis’s speech. I nevertheless just want to tell him that I cannot accept his allegation that a labour shortage allegedly had a detrimental effect on our tourism. There may be other factors which have that effect, but certainly not labour. Perhaps another factor is that very high tariffs are imposed on tourists. This is perhaps one of the reasons why persons from the middle income groups abroad cannot visit us—the costs of accommodation here are altogether too high. I have here a letter from one of my constituents who recently inquired about accommodation. He said that R16 per week was asked for a bachelor flat out of season and R60 per week in season. Why this big difference of R44? It is such unprecedented things that ought to enjoy our attention.

Provision is made in the Estimates for R1,825,000 for Tourism; R1,452,000 of this has been set apart for Satour and R24,000 for advertising purposes. Tourism has not yet come into its own. The Republic’s revenue from foreign tourism is estimated at R100 million. On the other hand, we export gold to the value of R773 million, wool R107 million, maize R74 million and fruit R100 million. Now compare the amounts voted by the Government for these industries to the small amount voted for Tourism and things do not look so bright for tourism. In reality we lose more on outgoing tourists than we receive from incoming tourists. As a matter of fact, it is estimated that in 1967 we showed a deficit of R11 million in this connection. This state of affairs ought to be put right in the course of time. We evidence a growth rate of 7.7 per cent, according to the 1967 report. But I believe that we should gradually increase our tourist industry to a growth rate of 15 per cent and even more. However, at the same time I want to warn against the Opposition’s idea that we should cause a so-called tourist explosion to take place in order to have tourists streaming into our country. They must think of many factors which we have to keep in mind. First there is transport, and especially our road transport. They must think of the caravans on the roads in the holiday season. They must think of the accommodation and the other services which must be supplied. It goes without saying that if there were to be a rush of tourists during the season it would result in a great deal of dissatisfaction. We would also have dissatisfied tourists. Instead of being an asset to us they would return to their own mother countries and greatly damage our case.

The Department of Tourism is still a relatively young department. If we now look at what has already been achieved in this short time and with limited funds, I feel that the hon. the Minister and his Department deserve our appreciation. If we take into consideration that in the year 1967 82 per cent of those who visited our country came on holiday, 12.4 per cent on business and 5.6 per cent for educational purposes, it is clear, from the report of the Tourist Corporation, that the interest of foreigners in South Africa is not only limited to holidays, but that they are also interested in our tremendous economic development. In the educational sphere there has also been an increase, although it is only very small. We notice here that it is only .5 per cent, but it is a good thing for us to do everything in our power to draw foreign visitors, thereby also showing them what we are doing here in our mother country to acquaint the primitive Bantu people with Western civilization.

I should also like to mention another matter. I want to associate myself here with the hon. the Minister of Tourism. I feel that in the first place we owe it to our own people to promote internal tourism among them. Therefore we must do everything in our power to make it possible for them to tour in our mother country. It would be impossible to expect the Department of Tourism alone to be held responsible for compensation in respect of future losses as a result of the collapse of the gold mines. It is very unreasonable and unfair to hold the Department of Tourism responsible for that. I feel that the Department of Tourism has done South Africa a tremendous service, and we should like to see tourism in our country extended, and making a great contribution to our economy.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest that we develop one of the greatest sights in our country so that we can draw tourists from abroad to a great extent. What I am referring to is the Blyde River canyon holiday resort. That place lends itself beautifully to the erection of an aerial cable-way, so that tourists can go over the Rondawel Koppe for a better view of that beautiful natural phenomenon.

My next proposal is historic in nature. R24,000 is being voted for films, etc. However, I want to make a suggestion in respect of the historic trek of Louis Trichardt, the greatest diplomat of all the Voortrekkers, the man who tamed the Transvaal and the northern parts of our country for us, and who also did wonders of which perhaps no one is aware, in the scientific sphere. At a later stage an entomologist set out on Trichardt’s train in order to determine the history of the Tsetse Fly. I feel that if we could make that Trichardt trek route over the Drakensberg accessible to visitors, so that they could also follow it in safaris on horseback and could see what tremendous achievements were made in crossing that mountain with ox-wagons en route to Lourenço Marques, we could use one of the outstanding events in our national history for the additional promotion of our tourism.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to finish what I was saying when I had to be stopped by the 10-minute rule. I want to point out that the urgency of the matter I am advocating this afternoon has been confirmed by others. It was confirmed by no less authorities than the persons the Minister has appointed to various boards. Mr. Knobel, the director of the Kruger National Park, who I think is on one of the hoards, Satour, speaking at a conference, said—

This is contrary, of course, to what the Minister feels. Then he went on to say that all our facilities are not adequate, such as hotels, transport and the ports. Then Mr. Venter, who is president of the Hotels Association and is a member of the Hotels Board went on a study tour overseas. He said the balancing of our foreign trade is an increasingly important role, a point which I made earlier. So one can go on to authority after authority. The Johannesburg Publicity Association at their annual meeting asked for a blueprint on the tourist industry. That is what is needed. We want to know what the objectives and the plans are, how the Minister is going to achieve them and whether he has the information to base this blueprint on. I doubt very much whether he really has the information. What is necessary, is a full inquiry into the potential of the hotel industry and what is needed in every respect in this country. Hotels may be needed in certain places. We must find out whether they need financing or not, what transport facilities may be needed, as well as a hundred and one other matters that appertain to the tourist industry. I do not believe that we will get anywhere until such an inquiry is instituted. It must either be an inquiry by his own Department by means of surveys, or an inquiry by an outside body. That may cause a delay, but at least one would know where we are factually in this matter. There would be recommendations to work on, such as we had before the Hotel Board was instituted. There was a very good inquiry into the matter. The recommendations came as a result of the inquiry. I believe that it has proved itself. I think it is high time either to do it internally by way of a committee of the Cabinet who will be responsible for various aspects of the matter, or an outside inquiry before proceeding further. We should know where we are exactly with regard to the tourist trade in this country. We are missing to-day golden opportunities for the earning of revenue and the increasing of our importance in the tourist world. The Minister’s own statement revealed that our trade comprised only .2 per cent of the world’s tourist trade. It is not very much when one takes it in those terms. It has been pointed out that we could bring it up to 20 per cent. Why should we not? The other countries have increased their tourist trade by 51 per cent over a very short period. Why should we not be able to increase it? If we could bring it up to 20 per cent, in the course of 15 years we would have overtaken the revenue of the gold-mining industry. I believe it can be done. The attempt should be made to do it.

Do we spend enough on tourism? It has been pointed out that in Portugal R290 million was spent on the promotion of the tourist industry. In our country it is R1.7 million. I do not suggest it should be such a large amount, but it constitutes 10 per cent of their budget. It is about .0001 per cent of our budget. We seem to be playing around with the problems of tourism. I urge the Minister to give attention to this matter, so that something may be done. Either give attention to it and get the job done, or get out!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Von Brandis wants to imply that the hon. the Minister of Tourism has no plans for the tourist industry in South Africa. However, if one looks at the report of the Hotel Board of 31st March, 1968, and at that of the South African Tourist Corporation for the same financial year, it is clear that we are not so badly off here in South Africa, although we perhaps draw relatively fewer tourists than other countries, especially Europe. The income from tourism for countries such as Britain and West Germany is 1 per cent of their national revenue. For countries such as Canada and Italy it is about 2.8 per cent. I think that it is only in Austria where tourism supplies about 7.9 per cent of that country’s national revenue. If the tourist industry earns about R100 million per year for us, and our national revenue is about R10 billion, our percentage is almost 1 per cent. This would then compare favourably with countries such as Britain and West Germany. On the other hand, we must bear in mind that those countries lie near to other densely populated states and a great portion of the population of those states only needs cross the borders in order to tour those countries. On the other hand, South Africa, with a view to its remote position—it is 6,000 miles from Europe and virtually as far away from most of the other Continents—cannot expect to draw foreign tourists to the same extent. If we look at what the Hotel Board has already done, according to last year’s report, it is clear that it is doing its best to give attention to the question of trained hotel staff. It is stated in this report that a special committee has been appointed which will go into the question of the training of hotel staff in general, with specific reference to the Bantu and the Coloureds. I myself have for years been connected with the Peninsula Technical College which, I think, instituted a course for waiters in hotels here in the Western Cape. A considerable number of Coloured waiters have already been trained. I think that we may be satisfied that within reasonable limits this Department has fulfilled its function properly, as is evident from the fact that when tourism in the world as a whole did not present a rosy picture last year, South Africa’s stream of visitors nevertheless increased constantly. We had an increase of 16 per cent in the number of European tourists visiting South Africa. In the case of America we had an increase of 17 per cent on the previous year’s figure. In the case of Australia we had an increase of 65.1 per cent. I therefore want to say that this Department, in view of our position in the world, did not altogether deserve the criticism which was levelled at it here to-day.

I nevertheless want to associate myself with those who appealed for the establishment of tourism as a large industry in South Africa. I think that there are a few specific factors in favour of the possibly more rapid development of this Department. One factor which I should like to mention is that South Africa occupies a unique position in Southern Africa. By stimulating the tourist industry in South Africa we could make a tremendous contribution, if we involved not only our own country, but others as well. According to figures supplied by the Portuguese Government, 360,000 tourists visited Mozambique in 1967. In the same year about 275,000 tourists. I believe that if there could be cordial cooperation in which we, with our greater resources, could play a leading role, we could do a lot to promote economic prosperity, not only for ourselves, but also for this region as a whole. In that respect South Africa is situated in a favourable position to extend its tourist industry to a much greater degree.

It is also a a fact that to-day there are 25 international airlines serving South Africa, and that in the past year, 40.2 per cent of all visitors to South Africa came to our country by air. In that respect we are in a better position to-day to draw more tourists from other countries.

A third factor is that with the closing of the Suez Canal we now find that, with about 150 passenger liners left in the world, about one-third of them call at least once, or even two or more times, at Cape Town and Durban. In that respect we are also in a favourable position in that, with this additional traffic around our coast, we can have a greater tourist industry in South Africa.

I just want to mention a few things to which more attention could possibly be given. It goes without saying that there is the question of advertising about which more could possibly be done, as the Tourist Corporation’s report indicates. We find, for example, that there is an increase of more than R100,000 in this Department’s budget for Satour. On the other hand, we find a very great decrease, from R175,000 to R112,000, i.e. about 33 per cent, in the amount which will be spent by the Department in respect of advertising. The one therefore virtually cancels out the other. In this report I get the impression time and again that the corporation feels that even more could be done by means of films and other information media to make South Africa better known.

In the Hotel Board’s report for the period ending 31st March, 1968, it has also struck me that 184 hotels have been graded and grouped up to that stage. In the list which is provided there are only five non-White hotels, i.e. 2 to 2½ per cent of all hotels. The question arises as to whether the Hotel Board and all other bodies concerned could not perhaps give better attention to this problem, which could become a more substantial problem in the future. It would mean that bigger and better facilities could be offered to the growing numbers of non-Whites who are in a position to tour in South Africa.

As far as Cape Town itself is concerned, the position in respect of tourist accommodation is probably not very different from that in the rest of the country. A committee was appointed last year by the Cape Chamber of Commerce which issued a report at the beginning of this year. In that report it is pointed out that in 1936 there were 6,500 hotel rooms in Cape Town, but that there were only about 5,000 at the end of 1968. There was therefore a decrease of 1,500 over a period of 22 years. That special committee indicated what steps could be taken to obtain additional hotel accommodation here in the Mother City. The one factor which is indicated is that the allowable density for hotel development on premises is much higher in other Provinces than in Cape Town. This means that on specific premises one could supply more hotel beds in places such as Johannesburg and Durban than in Cape Town. One asks oneself whether this is justified in the present circumstances, where building sites are becoming increasingly limited and where, in many cases, hotels have already been established and obviously cannot be moved. Is it necessary to allow such a small density and to make the mass factor so small? Can the mass not be increased in the case of hotels in Cape Town? If this were possible the existing hotels would offer a better investment field for the investors because then the owner would have the assurance that one day he would more easily be able to sell his hotel. If he wanted to extend he would also be able to do so on the existing premises. I think that it is specially important to note that when a tourist stays at a hotel he frequently spends only a day or two there. It is therefore not necessary to have large gardens around such a hotel. My own experience in other countries I have visited has been that there is virtually no question of gardens. One merely gets a room and if one wants to get close to nature, one goes out to find it. I think that in the case of Cape Town this is a problem to which the Hotel Board and perhaps also the Department could give its attention. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Von Brandis was good enough to advise me that he unfortunately had to catch a plane. I therefore thought it advisable to answer his points at this stage of the debate, seeing that he was the main speaker on the Opposition side. The hon. member seemed to indicate that I was a bit upset last year when he referred to this department as the “Cinderella department”. I do not think I was upset. What I did was to say to him that the comparison between what was done by this Government and what was done by the previous Government for this department, hardly gave him the right to say that this department was being given “cinderelia treatment”. I have just looked up the figures I quoted last time. I thought I would bring them to the attention of the hon. member once more. In 1947-’48 an amount of R90,000 was voted by the Government for Satour. In 1969-’70, that is to say in these Estimates, an amount of R1,452,000 is being voted. This hardly seems to me to be a “cinderella” attitude.

What was the value of the money in 1947?

I do not think that the value of money then was approximately 20 times the value of money to-day. All I am trying to convey is that it was this Government also which established the Department of Tourism. It was this Government which established a Hotel Board, although the previous Government had a commissioner’s report on the hotel industry, of which that hon. member was chairman. In 1944 or 1945 that commission recommended that a Hotel Board should be established, but the previous Government did not establish that Board. This Government established a Hotel Board.

That is another bit of policy you have taken over.

It is amazing that whatever we do was their policy. I honestly expect the hon. member for Green Point to claim that the Republic was their idea too. He is going to claim that he was the one responsible for giving South Africa a Republic. Just give him time, and it will be his policy.

I should like to come to another point which the hon. member for Von Brandis made. He talked about the Hotel Board, and said that the Minister was inclined to try to pass the responsibility on to other departments when the hotel industry complained to the Minister about inadequate labour. That is not correct. I do not know where the hon. member obtained that information. He said that he was quoting from a letter to the hon. member for Hillbrow. But the Hotel Board has approached the Minister on various occasions. It was the Minister who tackled the problem of Bantu labour in the hotels in the Hermanus area, for instance. Those Bantu were allowed to stay on for a further period. It was this unfortunate Minister, to whom the hon. member for Von Brandis was referring, when he said: “He should do the job, or get out”.

Hear, Hear!

One minute the Minister must be the catalyst, but when the Minister is the catalyst, the hon. member forgets what he asked for. This Minister, in conjunction with the Hotel Board, was responsible for training courses for non-Whites in the hotel industry. If that is not an effort to act as a catalyst, I do not know what is, because no training scheme can be undertaken by the Hotel Board without the Minister’s permission.

Have you done that in Johannesburg?

We have done it in Durban, with the Indians. We have had two courses there. We have taken Indians from the Transvaal down to Durban. We have done the same thing for the Coloureds here in the Cape. The intention is that the Department of Bantu Administration will do the same thing for the Bantu.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Transkei can get up later and make his ten minute speech. I am now talking to the hon. member for Von Brandis. I am telling him what the facts are. The hon. member also spoke about the hotel industry. The Minister is in touch with the industry all the time, through the Hotel Board. That is the mouthpiece of the hotel industry. If there is an isolated letter which floats around, from which the hon. member for Von Brandis can quote, I do not regard that as having necessarily come from the Hotel Board. However, if the Hotel Board approaches me, as the Minister, I immediately attend to them. The hon. member only has to ask the Hotel Board, on which Fedhasa have representatives, whether that has not been the case.

The hon. member also spoke about Satour. He said he was very surprised to see that in Satour’s report the Minister’s attendance of a meeting was made out to be something special. He said that the Minister should attend all their meetings. Sir, the chairman of Satour is now the Secretary of the Department of Tourism. He did not use to be. The contact between Satour and the Minister is therefore undoubtedly far better to-day than it ever has been before, because the head of the department is the chairman of Satour. That is the reason why it was done. It was never the intention that I should attend their meetings. This is not my way of working with Satour, which is an autonomous body. However, it was right that the Secretary of the department should be the chairman of Satour.

I realize now that they made a mistake in putting it under “important events”.

Maybe. As a matter of fact, I think they referred to a number of important events. Sir, the hon. member for Von Brandis cannot get out of it that way, and so easily. Here we had a case where the fact that the Secretary of the Department of Tourism was made chairman of Satour was criticized. And yet the hon. member now says that the Minister should have a closer link with Satour. The Minister could not have a closer link than he has to-day.

The hon. member for Von Brandis referred to certain statements I made about the gold industry. I think he appreciates now that there is a big difference between what I stated and the demand, and the suggestions, which were made, and what he had in mind. He referred to the fact that the gold supply was diminishing. What was suggested to me was that the gold industry could be replaced by the tourist industry.

I did go on to say that the revenue from this source cold equal the revenue from the gold industry.

Does the hon. member for Von Brandis really feel that?

I believe it is possible in the future.

In the distant future? [Interjections.]

My point is that that should be your aim.

Of course it is my aim. Of course may aim is to make the tourist industry a large industry. However, I am not so foolish as to make statements and support statements that the tourist industry can replace the gold industry in South Africa. Because mine is a realistic approach, the hon. member says that I am not enthusiastic. It is like a man in business. Does he think that a man in business who says that he is going to make a million rand is a wonderful man even if there is no possibility of him making more than R10,000? That is the difference.

The hon. member also spoke about the gap. The hon. member must know that I, more than anyone else, realize that there is a gap. I want to tell him that the gap has in fact increased. He may not know that. He said that the gap was R10 million. To-day it is R13 million. That is the assessment. The question is: Why is the gap widening? I know that it may be possible that, as more accommodation becomes available, we can have more tourists in this country than we have to-day. However, one must also bear in mind the position in South Africa to-day. There is money about in South Africa. Our people are comparatively well-off. More and more of them go overseas and spend money. I do not suppose that the hon. member for Von Brandis would want me to close the gap by forbidding people to go overseas. I shall not do that. To make it more attractive for people to come to South Africa is another matter. May I point out to the hon. member that there used to be a higher return fare from Britain to South Africa or from the Continent to South Africa than from South Africa to the Continent. I said that was absolutely wrong. It was fixed internationally. I said that it could not be done, because it was the same distance either way. By exertion of pressure through Satour and through JATA it was eventually agreed that there should not be a difference. That is only one factor. It did not change the gap. However, it was something that was established in fares which attracted people to go overseas rather than to visit South Africa. That was stopped. Now it is the same fare. This matter of attracting tourists to South Africa is very difficult. It is no good closing the gap and ending up with thousands and thousands of disgruntled tourists. The worst advertisement a country can have is when tourists are brought to the country where there is not sufficient accommodation and amenities. The result is that they will go back disgusted with their trip to South Africa. Such a tour to South Africa is expensive. Therefore, undoubtedly the matter has to be handled carefully. I will point out to the hon. member that it is true that the actual overall percentage increase was only about 8.8 per cent in 1968.

The same as last year.

Yes, in 1967 it was also 8.8 per cent. It did not reach the 300,000 which I hoped it would reach. It only reached 299,772. Our object was to reach 300,000. It is no good my saying that my object was to get ½ million, It would have been foolish of me to have made such an exaggerated statement. Even on 300,000 I was 228 down on what I hoped to get. However, what is a satisfactory feature of the figures is whereas the increase in Africa, and the Rhodesias particularly, was only 3.40 per cent, the increase in Europe was 20 per cent. The increase of tourists from Britain rose from 38,780 to 47,710. Britain is still the country from which the largest number of tourists come to South Africa. The tourists from Germany increased from 7,500 to almost 9,000 which is nearly 1,500. The numbers of tourists from countries like the Netherlands also increased. For instance, the number of tourists from Italy increased by over 1,000. The average increase of the number of tourists from Europe, America and those countries to whom we look for tourists, was well over 20 per cent. In fact, the number of tourists from Canada increased by 26 per cent while the number from America increased by 12 per cent. However, it would be no good trying to increase the number of tourists from these countries unless we have the accommodation facilities for them. This is a problem. This is why I want to say to the hon. member for Von Brandis who, I presume, talks for his party, that I am not prepared to think in globular figures when I know, in fact, if we should have globular figures of tourists in this country, we would only send dissatisfied tourists back. However, the position is changing all the time. Improvements are made.

Are you prepared to find out what is necessary to cope with these tourists?

Oh yes. As a matter of fact, I might undertake the survey which the hon. member referred to. I did not discount surveys. For the survey that I wanted private enterprise to do for me, they quoted R¼ million. I said that it was excessive. I decided that I would rather conduct surveys on a particular issue. They wanted to give me a broad survey of everything. I said that at R¼ million that survey was of no interest to me. Now I am surveying the position in particular sectors of our tourist industry. I know that the way the hotel industry is developing, in a matter of a few years, we will have about 5,000 extra beds available in the major cities of South Africa. One reads about this hotel development whenever one picks up a paper. Either a scheme is in progress or an amalgamation is being undertaken to develop certain hotels or to build other hotels. We have the Hotel Board financing hotels to improve themselves. The Government itself decided to give guarantees to international hotels in Johannesburg in conjunction with the city council. They offered the same facilities to Durban and also to Cape Town. The local authorities of Cape Town and Durban did not want to meet the 50 per cent obligation. On that basis I should like to know from the hon. member in what way he feels that the job is not being done and that the Minister should be replaced? I am quite prepared to listen to him and learn from criticism.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is the hon. the Minister prepared to make a full inquiry into the tourist industry as he did with the hotel industry; then he may base his blueprint for the future on that inquiry? I ask this because people outside feel that something should be done. There is unease.

No, I think in the case of the hotel industry it was a hotel commission. The inquiry visualized by the Government, is an inquiry which will be submitted to me and to the Prime Minister covering aspects of the tourism industry.

On what aspects will inquiries be made? I do not understand your reply.

Inquiries will be made as to the very facts which the hon. member for Von Brandis referred to, namely whether there are aspects of the hotel industry where there are bottlenecks, where there could be a different approach and where there should be a change. The hon. member talked about Portugal. For instance, a large amount of the money which he mentioned, is used by the Portuguese to own and build hotels of their own. That is something that I am sure the hon. member for Von Brandis would not approve of in principle. It is not something which we approve of.

They make use of old castles and buildings like that.

I know that. You have the same position in Spain. They spend millions on owning and running hotels. I have always said that function is for the private sector. I agree that money should be made available through the Hotel Board and in certain respects by the Government. However, I do not think that it would be a healthy move if this Government spent millions on the establishing and running of new hotels. I think the hon. member would agree with me. It is done in certain countries. It is done in Portugal and it is done in Spain. But we follow a pattern that is similar to that of some of the other Western countries. I appreciate the criticism from the Opposition, because their job is to criticize and I am anxious to learn from the criticism. I would however say that the points which the hon. member for Von Brandis had in mind are to a large extent points that have worried this Department, points that they have tackled. These points have either been referred to them by the Hotel Board or Satour. The member for Von Brandis also said that the catalyst is lacking. However, this is not the case and I can assure him that it will never be the case. The whole Department and myself in particular will be ready to hear any representations and will consider any proposals that are made.

I said that I would only reply to the hon. member for Von Brandis, because he told me that he had to go. I hope that the other members will realize that I will reply to them later.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister had only one important argument. He said that he would not like to bring tourists to South Africa when there are not enough accommodation facilities. He called these his problems. This is exactly what the hon. member for Von Brandis has raised. He made it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that he is not the only person responsible for this situation in South Africa, but that he should use his influence to change the whole situation in this country. We know that there is an explosion all over the world as far as tourism is concerned. Surely we will have to prepare; otherwise South Africa will not get its rightful share so far as tourists are concerned. The hon. the Minister boasted about the fact that we had 270,000 tourists during the last year.

300,000.

There has been an improvement, but I think the hon. the Minister should also listen very carefully to the criticism which is not only being raised by the hon. member for Von Brandis but also by other interested parties in this country. I want to refer him especially to an article which appeared in “Travel at Home and Abroad”. The article was written by John Marsh, the editor of this magazine. This is what he wrote:

The article lists some of the difficulties which prevent South Africa from taking its rightful share.

He wants to build a breakwater to Robben Island.

The hon. the Minister also boasted about the fact that he assisted the hotel owners in Hermanus in their efforts to keep their Native waiters. He has probably taken a leaf from the book of the hon. the Minister of Transport. A newspaper reported on this article by Mr. Marsh as follows:

These are only a few of the factors listed. That is why the hon. member for Von Brandis suggested to the hon. the Minister that he should act as a catalyst in this respect. I do not want to believe these unkind things which are said about the hon. the Minister. I find it very difficult to believe all this about the hon. the Minister. I believe that he can do something about this matter. It is in his own hands to change his image as Minister of Tourism in South Africa. It is not necessary for people to say that he has been a lamentable failure. That is why I say that I personally would not like to believe it. It rests with the hon. the Minister; he can be more dynamic and by actively doing so make tourism much more attractive in South Africa. I think we are looking all the time for new avenues and channels through which South Africa can make itself more attractive to the prospective tourists. We on this side of the House want to do the same. The ordinary tourist can find many interesting things which we have to offer. Apart from looking to the masses as tourists, and this is a question I want to put, what about the tourist who have specialized interests? I believe that South Africa should also cater for these people. I want to refer to a certain potential which we have in the Eastern Cape. I believe that this has not been explored as yet and that it has not been exploited to the full. I now refer to the posibilities of big game sea fishing in the Eastern Cape waters. We have a terrific potential there which can rival anything in the world, and that is not just the opinion of some enthusiastic deep-sea anglers. It was supported by a well-known expert, an authority like the late Prof. J. L. B. Smith, a top authority on fish. Prof. Smith was heard to say on many occasions that he was convinced that there was an unlimited concentration of game fish off Port Elizabeth, in the Mozambique current in the vicinity of Bird Island. We have evidence that just about all the premier games fishes of the world occur in our waters, not only around the Cape Peninsula, but also in our part of the country. Broad-billed swordfish have been washed ashore off the Eastern Cape. A friend of mine personally examined the carcass of one of these fish near the mouth of the Gamtoos River and every year a great number of yellow-finned tunny are caught there. Black marlin have been caught, as well as the striped marlin. Blue marlin have been identified in our waters. There is also a belief which was held by the late Prof. Smith that the white marlin occurs in our waters. Big-eyed tunney have been identified in the Eastern Cape waters. I mention these in order to explain to the hon. the Minister that here is a wonderful potential which should be exploited in order to get the important deep-sea anglers, who are prepared to pay a great deal of money for this facility, to come here. This is a potential which should be exploited to make our tourist industry more attractive. I need not mention to you, Sir, yellow-tail, barracuda and leervis. All these are found in Eastern Cape waters, but up to now this has not been exploited to the full.

Order! Is the hon. member not slightly off the point?

No, Sir, I am not off the point. I am busy with a very important point. I am not dealing with sport now. I want to say to the Minister that this is a step he could take. This is a matter which should be explored. We know that big game fishing in other countries of the world is an important tourist attraction. Why cannot South Africa do exactly the same?

We had an international competition here.

Yes, but I say much more should be done in this direction, because we have this terrific potential in the Eastern Cape waters. But it is no good getting people to come to South Africa unless we have the facilities. [Time expired.]

When one discusses a subject such as tourism it is quite easy to be led by personal interests and to say, as the hon. member there has said a moment ago: We must do more about this, that or the other. This is the popular thing to say and it is very easy to say it, but it is quite a different matter to decide what precisely one should do. When one thinks of policy in terms of tourism, there are a few aspects one must bear in mind without just having a pleasant chat about the fish one can catch in the Gamtoos. The hon. member could just as well have told us what pleasure one could get from hunting springbok near Richmond. Then one must also bear in mind what the position is of your country to which one wants to attract tourists, what the geographical position is and what the density of the population is in one’s country. One must also bear in mind what one wants to achieve with tourism. Does one want to regard it, as some people say popularly, as something to replace the gold mining industry, or does one want to regard it in the first place as an opportunity to advertise one’s country? I say these are all matters one has to bear in mind, and if one does that one will not reach the stage where the hon. members of the Opposition will express criticism of the kind expressed this afternoon, because this sort of criticism is irrelevant; it is neither here nor there. Somebody mentioned tourism explosion one day, and now some people like to talk about explosions; let us talk of a tourism explosion, because there was an explosion in Europe and many tourists are going there, and why can we not have it here as well, without thinking of what we are going to do with them here, of what we have to offer them and of what our aim is. In so far as there is a tourism explosion in Europe, it is a fact that they do not have to travel long distances there, and that people can quite easily travel backwards and forwards. In this connection it is equally important to realize that Europe is 6,000 miles away from us, and that America, which is our main source of tourists, is even further away, and any policy in respect of tourism will have to be adapted to that fact, i.e. the fact that thousands and thousands of people will not travel from that country to this one as they are doing in Europe; and, furthermore, the fact that it will only be the wealthy people who will incur the cost of travelling all the way to South Africa. In other words, when determining a policy for tourism one will have to take into account the fact that one is going to cater for the wealthy people. And if one thinks in terms of tourists, of people who will have to travel thousands of miles, accommodation is fundamental. In other words, hotel accommodation will have to cater for people in the very high income groups who will be prepared to pay. But something which is also involved here, is the question of transport. People who travel thousands of miles to visit our country, do not bring their own cars with them. They want to travel comfortably and very quickly from one place to another. That is why one will have to take into account the transport which will be required for that kind of tourist.

What is our aim as far as tourism is concerned, and could we, in the light of these phenomena, be in the same position the major tourist countries of Europe find themselves in? I want to say to-day without belittling the aims of tourism, that our country simply cannot compete with countries such as Spain and Austria and Portugal and others, not only on account of distances, but also on account of our geographical nature and composition of our population.

What are you talking about? We have much more.

The hon. member asks what I am talking about. May I remind him? He represents an urban constituency, the very kind of constituency that should make provision for tourism, but he comes from a country area originally where many people like himself are living, people in their thousands who come to our sea-side resorts during the holidays; these are our own people who are looking for these facilities in the first place. It is different in a country such as Portugal where thousands and thousands of people do not think it necessary to travel thousands of miles to be able to go on holiday, but who make it their duty to devote themselves to the tourist trade and who go and work in those hotels and ancient castles and who make a living out of it. But the sheep farmer Jan Moolman wants to go on holiday to East London once a year, even though he may not represent that constituency. And there are thousands of other people who do the same. The Public Servant in Johannesburg and Pretoria, the teacher from the rural areas, all of them want to go to the sea-side resorts and it is at the coast where we actually have our actual tourist resorts. [Interjection.] The hon. member says he would not even look at the sea-side resorts, but there are other fine tourist attractions such as the Kruger National Park.

I now want to ask the hon. member for East London (City) whether he would go to the National Park should it now be thrown open to another half a million people. Can he imagine the chaos there will be? Does he think the set-up in the National Park allows for millions of people to be dealt with? That is why I come back to the point by saying that our approach cannot be the approach we have in Spain or Austria or Portugal. Our approach should be to try to attract the wealthy people as well as those who have influence, but our aim should not be to use tourism as a substitute for the gold-mining industry, because this it can never be. Our secondary industry is systematically replacing our gold-mining industry, but our tourist industry should be an industry on its own, which should develop on its own and which should earn us more revenue, and it should serve us on its own as a medium to advertise our country overseas. If this is going to be one’s approach, surely it is wrong to speak of an explosion. I can understand that interesting bodies, travel agencies and others, which want to make as much money as possible out of an explosion on tourism, will make a great fuss and say that too little is being done in some respects, because they make some money out of it, but this is unrealistic. I say that when one approaches a policy in the way I have set out here, one must believe that, co-ordinated by all interests, the hotel trade, transport and other interests, there should be long-term planning where provision is made for an annual increase in the number of tourists one is able to cope with. I want to say to-day that a growth rate of 8 per cent, or as is said in some spheres, 10 per cent, which is the rate of growth we have at present as compared with that of last year, is an impressive one. I believe that if that rate could be maintained, a very high figure would be reached in 20 years’ time. But I want to repeat that it would be unrealistic to think in terms of an explosion which has to take place while one does not plan systematically to provide the necessary facilities. That is why I am convinced that, economically speaking and also as far as advertising our country is concerned, we may avail ourselves of the tourist trade, but then it should be planned and it should take place in an orderly fashion, and then it cannot be something we exploit to cause an explosion here.

I am most surprised at the hon. member for Stellenbosch speaking with so much pessimism about the possibilities of the tourist industry in South Africa. He is usually a man who speaks with great confidence and vehemence about the future of any undertaking in South Africa. I want to tell him that no less a person than the chairman of the Netherlands Bank, Dr. Frans Cronje, has himself stated that it was quite possible for the tourist industry to overtake the earnings from gold with its declining production in South Africa, and he says that could be done in a matter of two decades.

How can he compare it with the gold mining industry?

What I am indicating to the hon. member is that the potential of our industry is far greater than he was prepared to concede. But the difficulty is this. The Minister this afternoon indicated his attitude. The Minister who is in charge of the portfolio of Tourism says: Let me have suggestions and I will go into them. This is an attitude which the Minister has taken also in regard to regional conferences. When something is suggested and some discussion takes place and one thinks that this is a matter which should now be investigated by the Department of Tourism, the Minister always says Well, you go into the matter and give me some broad plan and then we can do something about it. But I think the initiative in these matters should come from the Minister himself. The initiative should come from his department, from their investigations. Sir, it does not take much initiative to look at the areas and the resorts which are attracting tourists at the present time. One has to look at the growing tourist attractions which are provided in the islands of the Mozambique channel; one has to look at the attractions of the Mediterranean Islands and the increasing number of tourists who are flocking to the Grecian Islands. I would have thought that long before now the hon. the Minister would have looked to the islands which are off the South African west coast and which could well be developed as tourist attractions. I want to suggest a particular one which happens to be in my constituency, one of the seven islands along the west coast, and that is Robben Island. The Minister has sat and allowed a tourist attraction, such as Robben Island which could be developed by the private sector, to remain as it is and to be used unproductively as a prison colony.

Order! I think the hon. member must come back to the Vote.

Sir, I am dealing with the Vote.

That has nothing to do with this Vote.

With respect, Sir, I am discussing with the Minister a matter which I believe deserves his attention in the fulfilment of his duties as Minister of Tourism and that is to provide tourist attractions.

Order! It belongs to another department for a specific purpose.

The Minister should be the catalyst and use his influence with the Cabinet.

I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that this is a matter that needs investigation by his department. The potential is there within a matter of five miles from the mainland. The hon. the Minister will know that that particular area of land has had a chequered history. History shows that it has been utilized from as far back as the year 1400 as an important stopping-place on the way round the Cape, and since then it has been used for various purposes; as a provisioning centre, as a postal station, as a leper settlement, for mental patients and during the war for Defence purposes, and now it is being used as a prison centre. I want to suggest to the Minister that this is a matter that needs looking into. We have the facilities and opportunities to make this island off the Southern Cape as great an attraction for tourists as any island in the Mediterranean.

We have lots of rabbits there too.

We can get rid of those. What will probably interest the Minister of Transport is the shocking neglect of the golf course there. It is not being used to-day; it has been neglected since the end of the war. But, Sir, I want to be serious. I believe that in the period between 1930 and 1940, when it was not being used by the State for any purpose, there was in fact an offer from the late I. W. Schlesinger, through his organization, of £1 million for the island. He wanted to purchase the island for development for this particular purpose, as a holiday and tourist attraction. I believe that this is a matter which the Minister should well consider because of the fact that this island is in a position where it could well be developed as a tourist attraction. Moreover, it has a climate which is far better than the climate of Cape Town itself. I has a rainfall of only 15 inches. Sir, I am sure the Minister will realize the potential of this island. There is the harbour, there are the yachting facilities, bathing facilities and fishing facilities. I hope this matter will receive his attention. I believe it has already been brought to the notice of his department at the regional conference which was recently held, but nothing is being done to investigate whether this potential can be developed. There has been a request from the Western Cape and from members on both sides of the House that something should be done to develop this attraction for the benefit of the tourist industry.

I do not want to react to what was said by the hon. member for Green Point, who made a constructive speech. I think the Minister will react to that himself. I want to begin by saying that I myself do not have the slightest doubt either that the tourist industry in South Africa will one day become one of our most flourishing industries. As the position is to-day, the tourist industry is already earning, with the exception of gold and wool, the largest amount of foreign exchange for South Africa, i.e. R100 million, as was said here this afternoon. But although we realize the value of tourism, one must view tourism in the right perspective, and one should not be over-hasty with visions of a throng of millions of tourists in this country. I think the hon. the Minister and the Secretary for Tourism and his department are setting about the entire planning of tourism in a systematic and proper way. The Opposition will therefore do much better to come forward with constructive criticism, as the hon. member for Green Point did, instead of following the example of the chief spokesman of the Opposition who came forward with criticism alleging that the Minister was not doing his work and that he would have to go if he could not do his work. The position as regards tourism, as I see it, is that we in South Africa should, in the first place, start by laying the foundations for the tourist industry. We still are in the initial stages as regards our tourist industry, and until we have developed all the resources at our disposal, we cannot throw the gates wide open as was recommended here this afternoon. The most important matter is, of course, the question of accommodation, as hon. members on both sides of the House have already said. To-day we simply do not have sufficient accommodation to receive these millions of tourists hon. members mentioned. There are various reasons for this. One of these is the fact that the schools in the various provinces all have their holidays more or less at the same time. We know that the hon. the Minister of National Education is working on a scheme to see whether the holiday seasons of the schools cannot be changed. This will do much to help to make more accommodation available. Sir, in spite of what the hon. the Minister said here earlier to-day, I nevertheless want to ask him whether he will not consider, as a long-term project, having hotels built for average tourists by means of making loans available at a low rate of interest, just as Spain did in respect of the beautiful isle of Majorca? I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Industrial Development Corporation, which has done so much to develop our industries in South Africa, especially those that were struggling, cannot help the tourist industry as well, which, after all, is also an industry, by way of guidance and even by way of financial support. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member for Stellenbosch that we cannot go in for mass tourism at this stage. We should rather pay special attention to the richer people, for example, the moneyed Americans. When I was in the U.S.A. recently, I heard that there were at least 100,000 millionaires in America, and if we could get some of those tourists from America and from Canada to stay here longer and to spend more money here, it would benefit us much more than to get tourists who pay flying visits of a few days to Cape Town or Johannesburg and then return. There are enough rich Americans and Canadians to-day to fill every aircraft and ship coming to South Africa for at least a year. Last year, according to the figures I could obtain, 18,000 Americans visited South Africa. This represents only a very small percentage of the potential we could get from the U.S.A. as well as Canada, but this nevertheless means a very healthy increase of 20 per cent on last year’s figure. This causes me to express a special word of congratulations to-day, in spite of the criticism expressed by the Opposition here, to the tourist organization in South Africa, and by this I mean the hon. the Minister, his zealous and energetic Secretary, Mr. Vladimir Steyn, as well as Satour, the people who succeeded in developing the tourist industry, in spite of problems we still have in our country, to such an extent that we were able to attract these 18,000 Americans to our country. There are many rich Americans as well as Europeans who have become bored with visiting other countries. They have travelled all over the world; they have been in the West Indies, in Britain and in Europe, and now they are looking for more interesting hunting grounds. I am convinced that South Africa, with the correct approach and the correct publicity, will be able to provide those new hunting grounds, those spectacular and unique experiences the Americans and the British are looking for.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to say a few words about publicity, an aspect of which I think I have a little knowledge. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the fact that the Department of Tourism is now employing the services of a South African advertising company instead of American companies, as it used to do. Recently when I was in New York, I visited Satour’s office there and I was impressed by the brilliant material which they are distributing there from a publicity point of view. Unfortunately I do not have a brochure here, but I can tell you, Sir, that some of the slogans and headings in the brochures they are distributing there are absolutely gripping, and will certainly grip the imagination of the American in his own idiom. I just want to mention one example I can remember, and that is the following heading in a brochure, “Have you ever surprised a lady in her bath?”, and then follows a photo of an elephant playing in the water, and interesting scenes in connection with an elephant taking a bath. An interesting thing is, Sir, that people overseas are no longer so interested in lions; it seems to me as though people overseas are much more interested in elephants to-day. There are 7,000 elephants in the Kruger National Park alone …

5,000 too many!

… and I think that we should shift the emphasis more from lions to elephants now. It is easy to understand why they are so interested in the elephant. It is an animal from prehistoric times, and they feel that they could perhaps see a lion in a zoo in other parts of the world, but that it is not an every-day occurrence to see large herds of elephants.

I also want to congratulate Satour on the slogan they devised to sell tourism overseas. They devised one single impact-making, comprehensive slogan under the title of “South Africa: Come see for yourself.” I think this is a very good psychological approach, because the message reaches not only the prejudiced, but also those who are ignorant about our country, and I want to ask whether this slogan cannot perhaps also be taken over by the other media that are making publicity for our country overseas, for example, the S.A. Airways and the Department of Information, and perhaps even the South African Foundation as well.

In the second place, before I conclude, I want to plead with the hon. the Minister that he should enable tourists to enter the country more comfortably, and in this connection I want to make a few suggestions. In the first place I want to ask whether he cannot use his influence as a Minister to advocate the abolition of one of the greatest evils in our hotels about which all tourists in South Africa complain endlessly, and that is the South African habit, or custom, or disease, or bad habit—call it what you like—of waking one up in hotels in the early hours of the grey dawn with a cup of tea or coffee. Sometimes that tea or coffee is quite undrinkable in any event. Few people ever drink that coffee, and the tourists complain that, when they still want to enjoy their early-morning sleep, the servants come and hammer on the doors. I want to deliver a plea to the hotels in South Africa to-day to consider whether they may not as well abolish that South African custom.

Then I want to ask whether taxi companies in our big cities cannot arrange matters in such a way that during the peak seasons of tourism, taxi drivers who at least know something of our country, can be stationed near our stations, airports or major hotels. A taxi driver is one of the first points of contact in any country. [Interjection.] Mr. Chairman, “taxi” is a generally accepted word in Afrikaans. “Taxi” happens to be a French word, and it is in common use in Afrikaans. The taxi driver is one’s first contact in any country, and that is why I want to ask whether an appeal cannot be made to taxi companies to place more knowledgeable people, people who are well-informed about conditions and attractions in South Africa, at these important points of entry. Then I also want to ask whether we cannot devise a plan to welcome tourists in a more friendly way on their arrival at Jan Smuts Airport. I have in mind the employment of a team of efficient and attractive girls, for example, as we find a well known commercial bank in South Africa is doing. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, to discuss tourism is to discuss an industry which has great possibilities. In this debate tourism was referred to from time to time as an earner of foreign exchange. This is true, especially when one has regard to the fact that a year or two ago there were 128 million people who travelled outside the borders of their various countries, and who spent R6,000 million in the process. According to the latest estimates South Africa’s share was 275,000 tourists in 1968. But, Sir, the question arises whether we are not over-emphasizing tourism as an earner of money and whether one should not pay more attention—this is important to me—to tourism as a means of creating a sound mutual understanding between people and nations. As regards our approach to this entire matter, I think that in future we should perhaps place more emphasis on this aspect, so that we may help to create more goodwill towards South Africa through tourism.

As regards tourism in general, however, there are certain problems we are struggling with. There are problems in respect of accommodation, in respect of the elimination of which the Hotel Board is making a very major contribution. I want to pay tribute this afternoon to the good work the Hotel Board has done in this connection within a very short time. They may rest assured that the good work they are doing is held in high esteem. But they cannot do all the work by themselves. Now I want to submit for consideration that the time has arrived—this to a certain extent proceeds from the argument my colleague made a moment ago in respect of the welcoming of overseas visitors at airports—that a little more attention should be given to establishment of visitors’ clubs for overseas tourists, which, on the one hand can be instrumental in meeting the accommodation requirements, and on the other hand, can provide information and guidance and make those people feel at home in South Africa. Not only should they make the visitors feel at home, but they should also see to it that, wherever those visitors may come from, there will be a typical South African atmosphere in the places of accommodation, and that that atmosphere will be maintained and that the overseas visitors will derive full benefit from that. If we do this we shall, in my opinion, be making a major contribution in any event towards the creation of goodwill between ourselves and overseas visitors.

But now there is another matter in this connection to which I should like to refer as well. I want to deliver a specific and to the point plea for closer co-operation between the Department of Tourism and the Department of Cultural Affairs with a view to our overseas visitors being enabled to an increasing extent to become acquainted with the cultural treasures of South Africa as well. I foresee that the time will come when hardly any visitor will not have had an opportunity of visiting places such as our cultural history museums and other places of cultural interest as well. If we take our overseas visitors to such places they will also be able to form a better understanding of our sentiments in South Africa. Consequently I am asking whether the time has not arrived for seeking closer liaison between this department and the Department of Cultural Affairs.

I also want to ask, in another connection, whether it will not be possible to give consideration to the publication of a properly compiled and comprehensive tourist guide to replace this mass of pamphlets, brochures and folders which are made available from time to time with a view to publicity for our tourist industry. This could include everything, also what is contained in these loose pamphlets, etc. Such information, if properly compiled, may serve as a permanent work of reference for prospective visitors.

As a result of a plea delivered last year, I should like to hear from the Minister whether attention has been given to the possibility of integrating the Tourist Corporation more closely with the Department of Tourism. We tried to make out a case for this last year, and the understanding was that the hon. the Minister would go into the matter more deeply. Can the Minister give us any indication of whether something like that is feasible? I still feel convinced that if the Department were to have full control over the Corporation, it would be possible to have a larger degree of uniformity in their activities, and this could only stimulate the promotion of this industry.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply at this stage to some of the points raised. The hon. member for Lydenburg in referring to the Blyde River Canyon said that consideration should be given to having a cable-way in that canyon. In my opinion there would be great opposition from a large section of the public who might say that the erection of a cable-way might destroy the natural beauty. All I can say to the hon. member is that it is a matter which he should take up with the provincial authorities responsible for the development of the Blyde River Canyon, and that he should try and convince them that this is something which they should consider. They have developed this canyon. It was not done by private enterprise but by the province. If they consider that this suggestion has merit, they will no doubt give it their support. My own feeling is that there would be a great deal of public feeling against such a development in that beautiful natural resort and that beautiful canyon. The hon. member also referred to the Louis Trichardt trek. I have seen the path that was worn by the ox waggons wheels and to South Africans this means a great deal. This would undoubtedly be appreciated by them but on the other hand I do not think that overseas tourists will take very much notice of it. However, because we are also concerned with our internal tourists I feel it is something that should be brought to their notice and to that extent I support the hon. members.

The hon. member for Green Point referred to the potential of tourism. I do not disagree that there is a potential of tourism. All I can say to the hon. member for Green Point is that I do not believe in a complete exaggeration of the situation. The hon. member mentioned Dr. Frans Cronje. I know Dr. Frans Cronje well. I also know that he is chairman of the Netherlands Bank. But I do not agree with him when he said—and I am not speaking on the long term—that on the short term there could be almost a complete revolution in the tourist economy which could bring about a situation whereby tourism could replace gold as a source of foreign currency.

He gave us two decades.

I am sorry, but I cannot agree with Dr. Frans Cronje. I should like to point out to the hon. member that, on the basis of the present situation, it will mean that in a matter of 20 years we in South Africa would have to bring into this country something like 3 million tourists.

No, that is not correct.

On the present basis of 300,000 tourists, the estimated gross income is somewhere near R90 million. Therefore, if we want to increase this amount to bring it to the same level as the revenue derived from gold, we must increase the revenue to something like R800 million.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Does the Minister not interpret Dr. Cronje’s statement in the same way as I do, namely that when he speaks of gold being replaced in two decades, he means only that portion of the gold output which has diminished?

That was never said.

Surely that is what he intended?

He said that it might be equal to the gold industry. He was not saying that it could replace the diminishing gold industry, but that it could equal the gold industry. When the hon. member for Von Brandis mentioned this matter I immediately said to him that there was a difference between what he said when he spoke of the diminishing gold industry, and what had been stated previously. Previously it had been stated that this could be equal to the gold industry. It is no good bluffing myself. If I stick my neck out like that, I am sure that the first people to chop it off would be the hon. members on that side of the House. I am not prepared to make statements which are exaggerated. I want to stick to facts. In regard to the increase of tourism in South Africa from year to year, I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Stellenbosch. He is quite right. One cannot produce a situation where there is a tourist explosion, because this will undo all the good work one has tried to do over the years. That is why I said we should be realistic. Let us approach tourism from a realistic point of view. If we do so, I feel that we can make headway.

The hon. member for Green Point also spoke about the regional committee meetings which I have attended. He said that I was inclined to ask those committees for their suggestions. He said that I should initiate such suggestions. Surely the hon. member does not appreciate the situation. I think there was a case where the hon. member for Simonstown spoke to me personally, at this meeting at Fish Hock in regard to the Miller’s Point fishing harbour, which they wanted the State to develop.

We were not talking about that. We were talking about the motivation of new schemes.

Yes, but I am just using this as an illustration. The hon. member wanted me to initiate an inquiry. I refused to do so, but said: “If the inquiry is initiated by your people through the Divisional Council, I shall be quite prepared to consider whatever is submitted, and I shall then submit it through the right channel, because I also believe that there are certain people who are completely against the idea of Miller’s Point being developed into a fishing harbour.” There are always two sides to such a matter. The hon. member mentioned Robben Island, a matter which was also raised at this conference. Does the hon. member really think that I should initiate the sort of scheme he has in mind, namely to develop Robben Island into a vacation island? I do not want to call this a wild-cat scheme, but there are many more things my Department and I can apply ourselves to, things which have greater possibilities than to develop Robben Island. That is why, when the hon. member for Newton Park spoke about big game fishing, I realized again, as I have always realized, that this is one of the aspects of the South African coast line that can be further developed. I have made a point of appealing to people in this regard, particularly when it comes to the fishing arrangements we have at Simonstown. I have attended functions they have had. I feel that the last international tournament they had was fantastic. I have also been up to places like Port Alfred, Kosi Bay and Sordwana. Here I was thinking in terms of the Mozambique Channel, because it may not be off the Eastern Province, but nearer the Mozambique coast, that one may find the biggest game fish.

But you must do research.

Yes, I quite agree. I should like to point out to the hon. member that the Portuguese have certain facilities in that direction. Not only on the mainland, but also on the islands, like Paradise Island or Pleasure Island. Nevertheless, these are aspects which can be taken into consideration. I realize that there are certain things we can develop to attract tourists. Some of these things can reasonably be developed, whereas I would say that the proposal made by the hon. member for Green Point about Robben Island is completely beyond my imagination as this time.

Will you motivate handing it to the municipality for development?

No, I most certainly will not do that. I think the matter must be gone into very carefully. We do not think it is just a question of my motivating that it should be handed to the municipalities. I am not prepared to consider doing that. I think there is much more spade-work to do than just to say this across the floor of the House. I think the hon. member said that Mr. Schlesinger was prepared to buy it for £1 million. I would say to the hon. member that I am prepared to take it over to-day at £1½ million if the Minister of Police is prepared to sell it. However, it is quite out of the question. I think from the Police point of view, Robben Island is not a holiday resort, the same as Salisbury Island in Durban harbour cannot be regarded as anything but a Defence base.

We know that it is not required for defence any more.

How do I know that? During the last war I used to fly in to Robben Island.

That was the last war, not a modern war.

I must really say that the hon. member for Green Point came here with a suggestion without having gone into the facts fully.

I think it shows how necessary it is that you should go into this.

I go into facts, but I do not go into wildcat schemes. The hon. member for Newton Park referred to an article about the lamentable failure of the Minister to fulfil his task. I read the article too. In actual fact, I have read other articles in a similar vein by people I take notice of when I think notice should be taken of them. However, I must say I was not impressed with the author of this particular article. Generalities like that just do not impress me. If the man wrote about the people who were held up at Durban on the airport, I am prepared to say that I would have gone into a matter like that. However, in actual fact, I would also say that my experience at airports has been very satisfactory. That also applies to the time before I became a Minister. Just recently I was travelling in a Rhodesian airliner which must have been carrying over 100 passengers. The treatment which the authorities gave the passengers of that aircraft was very good and quite equal to anything which I have experienced abroad. The hon. member also talked about specialized tourists. Of course, we are in favour of specialized groups of tourists, groups of a particular nature. The only group that we do not really approve of, are the people who come to South Africa for hunting purposes. In this country we do not believe in providing hunting facilities. We have our parks, but we do not believe in hunting.

You should change your attitude.

No, I will not. I would be very reluctant to see hunting in our game parks. Even when it was pointed out that the game had to be thinned out, I completely supported the Parks Board when they said that the game should be thinned out by warders and not by hunters. I think this is a policy which a large number of people in South Africa support. There is hunting being done on other farms, but not in our game parks. The hon. member also talked about the fishing facilities. I should only like to emphasize that if anything in that direction develops, it will be nearer to the Mocambique border than down to the Eastern Province, because it is in the Mocambique Channel itself where the marlin and the big-game fish are found.

The hon. member for Vasco referred to the ships that are coming to Cape Town particularly. All I can tell him is that every effort is made to contact the ships that come in. We have been in touch, particularly, with lines like the P. & O. line whose tourist ships used to pass through the Suez Canal. Since the Suez Canal has been closed they come via Durban and Cape Town. Every effort is made to accommodate these tourists and to give them the opportunity of seeing as much as they can during the short period during which they are here. The ships do not stay very long; they are en route particularly for Europe, but we do as much as we can as far as they are concerned.

The hon. member for Turffontein spoke about the accommodation bottleneck, and about loan money at lower rates of interest for the erection of new hotels, such as in Majorca. In this connection I can just say that we face a problem when we supply loan money, through the Hotel Board, to hotels in a place where there are already established hotels. It undoubtedly does not appeal to the established hotels. It does not appeal to me either. The attitude is that the money which we supplied to the Hotel Board, was supplied on the understanding that priority should be given to the improving of already established hotels. Incidentally this question of loan money which is used for the improving of hotels, is not referred to me, but when it comes to a new hotel it is referred to me. The only one which was referred to me and to which I agreed, was in the case of Hluhluwe, where there was no hotel and where the accommodation in the game reserve was not adequate. In that case there was every justification for the new hotel. The basis on which the hotel has been allowed there, was that the reserve is a tourist attraction and if hotel accommodation could be offered near the reserve, it would be of great advantage to the tourist industry. The hon. member also referred to the rich Americans; all I can tell the hon. member is that Satour is regularly in touch with 100,000 of the rich Americans who have gone overseas but who have not yet come to South Africa. It is being done through that agency to which the hon. member referred. The hon. member also referred to the complaints about the early morning coffee and tea; I shall pass it on to the Hotel Board. The hon. member suggested that the tourists should be welcomed by taxi drivers and attractive girls. Well, I suppose that all we married men will not be prepared to say that there should be attractive girls, although we might think so. Nevertheless I appreciate the point which he has made.

I want to refer to the matter about the Department of Tourism and Satour, which the hon. member for Springs has raised. Satour is an established, autonomous corporation, and it has been granted the right to operate as such by an Act of Parliament. That being so, I did not feel myself justified to refer this to the department, neither do I feel myself justified to make any suggestions to the Cabinet, nor to consider it myself. My own point of view is that Satour operates efficiently and I am always in contact with the chairman of Satour, who is also the Secretary of Tourism. I think that the present way is the best way of developing Satour. The same applies to the Hotel Board. I do not want to dominate the Hotel Board through my department. All I can say is that the Hotel Board is an autonomous board of which the Deputy Secretary of the Department is a member. Some matters are referred to me, but the ordinary running of their activities is done by the body itself and therefore the responsibility rests with them. I have found that this basis works very well and I do not want to take on the role of being the person who dictates to these boards in detail how they should operate and what they should do. Therefore, I reject this suggestion, and I do not see any justification for any change in that direction.

I think I have answered most of the questions which were raised here. In regard to the other questions which I have not answered fully, I can say to the hon. members that I have made notes of the questions and that they will undoubtedly be attended to by me and my department.

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I am grateful for the opportunity of once more being able to focus attention on an area which is not a large area and which is not merely an area in my constituency either, but an area which actually includes the whole north eastern part of Natal. This area is, by chance, of inestimable value to tourism. In addition we also now have the new hub of development towards the future expansion at Richard’s Bay. In the future Richard’s Bay will be linked by road and rail to Vryheid, and thereby also to the Eastern Transvaal. A large national road is also being contemplated from Pongola to Richard’s Bay. We therefore find that all these communications channels are directed at Richard’s Bay, which is regarded as the growth point and which will, at a later stage have to provide for more than .8 million people. It is the present day tendency to make use of air transport. If we were to look at the figures supplied in the Satour report we would know that air transport supplied about 40 per cent of the total transport for tourists. Not only do we have to complain about the lack of landing facilities for aircraft in that large area, but we also have to complain about the lack of means of transport which will be necessary for tourists as soon as those communications channels have been established. This aspect is going to need very prompt attention. Then there is also the question of large buses being prohibited in the game reserves. In the light of what the hon. Chief Whip of the United Party said here a moment ago, in connection with the Jumbo-jets, I wonder how the numerous tourists from the large cities and airports will be transported to these tourist resorts.

I now want to confine myself more specifically to the question of beaches, beaches which stretch from the Tugela River to Kosi Bay close to the Portuguese border. In this area we have the terrible situation that not a single inch of that beach area is open to development by private initiative. It is a situation which the entire country is not aware of. If is an indefensible situation and, seen from a tourist’s point of view, it places us in an impossible position. A small portion of the land in that area, which does not belong to the Department of Bantu Administration, falls under the Department of Forestry, and the major portion under the control of the Natal Parks Board. I now want to refer to the Natal Parks Board.

At a place such as Mtunzini, where there is a beautiful lagoon, the Natal Parks Board adopts the standpoint that they control everything beneath the surface of the water, but they they do not control its surface area. If problems arise about who should control the surface area of the water one can land in all kinds of difficulties. I put the matter to the Director of the Natal Parks Board and when I asked him what he could do about it he suggested that the lagoon area be annexed to the Mtunzini Town Council. However, when the Town Council applied to the Natal Parks Board their request was refused; this is now the type of co-operation we get from them.

I have already pointed out that the camping spots at Richard’s Bay during the holiday season are so inadequate that people camp next to the roads in the veld, while no facilities exist.

A new problem has now arisen again at a place where the Zululanders traditionally go for their week-end sport, i.e. Mapelane. About 35 people have small holiday cottages here which are made of wood. They are also, inter alia, ski boat clubs. The people have now been instructed to leave that area because the Parks Board, with the great powers at its disposal, has simply decided that they must no longer be allowed there. I now ask myself, who must we turn to? Is the Parks Board the absolute monarch who arranges and decides everything in that area? They not only did that, they also appointed an official to search the people and vehicles entering there. I want to claim this evening that there is probably no statutory board in South Africa which acts as high-handedly as the Natal Parks Board. In addition, they always do so against the explicit and express wishes of the public. Each time it is a deliberate attempt at displaying their powers and frustrating and angering the public.

A “Varkeraad” (Pigs Board).

I am grateful for that descriptive word. The same applies to the St. Lucia municipal area. This area does not border on the sea itself because the actual strip of beach also falls under the control of the Parks Board. At False Bay they spoke of development to the tune of about R1 million, specifically at the so-called Picnic Point. However, when we asked them when they were getting round to the development they replied that it was still in the embriological stage. Although there was no money for the development at Picnic Point, we subsequently heard of an amount of R600,000 being voted for development at Midmar. We then asked why there was money for development at one place and not at another. Thereupon they replied that they were being threatened by the Government and that the Government has said that they could not gain control over the Midmar Dam before they had developed it according to the Government’s specifications. The hon. members see the logic of that argument; if the Government threatens the Parks Board they do it very quickly. They are hard at work developing that area merely because the Government exerted pressure on them. I believe that it is the task of the Department of Tourism also to use its influence in the interests of the tourist attractions of the Zululand coast.

With respect to the need for accommodation which has already been discussed this afternoon, I want to quote you a statement by the Parks Board.

“To yield to the ever-increasing demands for more and more accommodation in significant game areas (not “inside game reserves”, but in “game areas”, i.e. also on the beaches) would make those areas less and less suitable for what the visitors hope to see.”

They also stated:

If things go on like that I see no other alternative but to recommend that the work of the Natal Parks Board be taken over by the National Parks Board.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed

Progress reported.