After the discussions we had yesterday …

And after Witbank!

Yes, and after Witbank, which has furnished further evidence of the decline in popularity of the Government … [Interjections.] … as against a steady progress being made by the Opposition … [Interjections.] … we have to review the position as it is at the moment. We have had two non-controversial although interesting statements from the hon. the Prime Minister—on his negotiations with Zambia and on the Bureau for State Security. What we have not had are replies on some of the most important questions we have put to the hon. the Prime Minister. For instance, we have not heard from him how he proposes controlling the time-table towards independence in the case of those homelands which he has offered ultimately sovereign independence. We have heard that he talks to these people; that his Minister, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, talks to them in his office and apparently gets very angry with them outside, but we have had no indication at all what teeth, if any, there are in those talks. He has not given us any indication of what his attitude will be in cases where they do not agree, nor what his attitude will be if they press for independence as they undoubtedly will in many cases, before he thinks it ought to be accorded to them. In the light of what has happened in the rest of Africa, we should like to have some idea of what his views and ideas are in this regard.

Neither have we had an attempt from the hon. gentleman to grapple with the foreign policy problems, problems in the field of international relations, with which we are confronted. There has been no denial from him that pressures are building up against South Africa. In fact, far from there being an improvement in the situation, these pressures are today stronger than they were. We have had no reaction from the hon. gentleman to the fact that certain unfortunate, and sometimes unnecessary, actions ruin the good work of our friends in embassies overseas. We have had no indication from him what he is doing about that state of affairs, either at home or abroad. Nor have we had any attempt from the hon. gentleman to deal with what is perhaps the most important facet of race relations in South Africa today. I refer to the problem of our urban Bantu population. All we have had so far is a stereotyped reply from the hon. the Deputy Minister, outlining a policy which we have always regarded as being half-baked and which is bound to fail in the end. It is not working at the moment; as a matter of fact, it cannot work because of its inherent contradictions.

Let me remind the hon. the Prime Minister that virtually the worst disturbances we have had in the field of race relations in South Africa have originated in our urban Bantu townships in the White areas.

Under whose regime?

Under the regime of the present Government we have had the worst. I do not think that we have had anything worse than the 1949 riots in Durban, the Rand bus strike in the 1950’s, the police murders in Cato Manor, Sharpeville, Langa, Poqo trouble in Paarl, etc. While talking about this, let me ask, what about the warnings in the Snyman Commission’s report as to how many of these schemes were cooked up in the bachelors’ quarters? I want the hon. the Prime Minister to recall these things because of the seriousness of the situation which can develop in those areas. It is not surprising that it should be so because this is the melting pot; this is where constant adjustments have to be made; this is where mistakes and wrong policies can have serious consequences and where Government policy is being applied in its most hurtful form. The hon. gentleman has been closely associated with a lot of these things and he knows the story through the years. It is therefore not necessary for me to recount it. But virtually all our troubles in the field of race relations have started in these urban Bantu townships. These have been the breeding ground for disturbances and the areas where trouble has occurred.

The hon. the Prime Minister knows as well as ¡I do that the best insurance against disturbances in those areas is to ensure that the local population is on the side of law and order against the agitators. Of course, one may get dissatisfaction, people wanting to talk, people making wage demands, people making requests, but agitators do not take over when there is a large section of the local population on the side of law and order. History throughout the world has shown that the best way to retain law and order is to ensure that in those townships a class is developed which stands to lose something when law and order breaks down. These are, firstly, those people who have homes of their own, homes in which they have invested their savings, which they own themselves and consequently do not like to see depreciated in value or destroyed or damaged in any way. The second group are the sort of middle class occupants of any town or country, people who are traders and merchants or professional men who need peaceful conditions to prosper. I think the best safety valve is not purely advisory institutions where people can talk and, if necessary, make irresponsible suggestions but carry no responsibility. The best safety valve is where members of the local population, put there by themselves—preferably elected—have executive and administrative functions in which they carry a responsibility.

The last safety valve, of course, is a contented and undisturbed family life. Whenever that matter is raised, Sir, we are immediately challenged and asked if we want every Bantu to bring his wife with him. Hon. gentlemen opposite know that that is difficult if not impossible, but by the same token there are many demands today for the labour of Bantu women, both in our rural areas and in our urban areas. There is not the slightest doubt that if more of them were available, work would be available for them, and there is not the slightest doubt that if they came not on short-term contracts but on longer-period contracts—man and wife together—they could be fitted into the economic scene very advantageously and very profitably for both sections of the population.

Sir, what have we had from the hon. the Deputy Minister? We have had the statement that virtually all these things are denied to them. His argument is not that it is impossible to give them to the urban Bantu population: his argument is that it is against the fundamental ideology of their policy. That is the argument, Sir. He regards them as “volksmense” who belong to a tribe somewhere, even if born here, even if never likely to visit the homelands at any time unless pressurized out when they are too old or too sick to work here any more; then they have to be taught that they have to abandon loyalty to South Africa and that their first loyalty is loyalty to a Bantustan which is going to be given independence one day, somewhere, somehow. Sir, we are sacrificing our greatest guarantees of maintenance of law and order, our greatest insurances against disturbances of any kind in the event of there being unemployment, in the event of difficult situations arising, not because they are impossible to supply but because they are against the ideology, the policy, of this Government. [Time expired.]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition yesterday laid it at the door of the hon. the Prime Minister and this Government that increasing difficulties are arising abroad for us and our friends as a result of this party’s policy, and he also said: “We must try to reverse this growing danger of isolation”.

Do you not agree with that?

Mr. Chairman, after the hon. the Prime Minister had exposed the President of Zambia here to South Africa and to the world, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also mentioned the overtures he had made through friends to the leaders of Black Africa states. Then, if I understood him correctly, he spoke in a derogatory and disparaging tone of the attempts of the hon. the Prime Minister and then, too, the leaders and the people of the Africa states and hinted that we could not really have expected anything else from these people of Africa.

Sir, I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must begin to realize—and I think his Deputy on his right cannot but agree with me—that there are certain attitudes to be found in respect of South Africa in the outside world. Firstly, there is an attitude of friendship and, secondly, an attitude of hostility, and thirdly, there are the neutrals, the sceptics and those who are ignorant of South Africa. Now, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must realize one thing, which is that these attitudes towards South Africa and towards the Whites of South Africa do exist, and that they are not confined to the National Party or the hon. the Prime Minister as such. These are attitudes which exist towards the Whites of South Africa, and if that side of the House imagines that, particularly in England, there may be a feeling towards them which does not exist in regard to this side of the House because they are the spiritual and lawful successors of the people who won the Anglo-Boer war, then they are wrong and have no sense. [Interjections.] The people who wanted to sell weapons to South Africa and the people who wanted to trade with South Africa, will do so whether there is a National Party Government or a United Party Government in power; the people who wanted to boycott South Africa in the field of trade and the people who do not want to provide South Africa with weapons, will also do so the day that Party, or even the day the Party of the hon. member for Houghton, comes into power.

Who told you that? It is wishful thinking.

The second thing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must realize is that the policy of his Party, and particularly the relationships policy of his Party, does not in any way impress either the neutrals, the friends or the enemies of South Africa. The morality of the United Party’s race federation, with eight Bantu representatives, six Coloured representatives and two Indian representatives in this House, leaves those people not cold, but stone cold. They see through its falseness as one can see through a clear piece of glass.

What the friends of South Africa and the sceptics in regard to South Africa in the outside world are asking, in England and in Europe, is relationships politics which is morally justifiable on the one hand and feasible on the other. They are prepared to listen to the relationships policy of the National Party and this Government. And I believe that the more it unfolds and the more it is successfully proved, the more it will be accepted in the outside world, and I make so bold as to say that those well-disposed towards us in the outside world are hoping that it will succeed.

But there is another aspect as well which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must fully realize. This is the aspect of the relationships politics of the National Party which is making a very favourable impression on the world outside, namely the relationships politics in respect of Africa which has been applied so dynamically by this hon. Prime Minister in Africa and the world. The mere fact that we are moving into Africa under his leadership gives our friends in the outside world a powerful weapon, it impresses the sceptics and it sows panic among the enemies of South Africa. It is this Prime Minister’s untiring, patient and repeated holding out of the hand of goodwill to the states of Africa which impresses them.

Who wrote that for you?

I wrote it myself; I do not need a person like the hon. member for Yeoville, who writes his leader’s speeches, to write mine. Sir, it is his offers of help and his gestures to Africa which fit into the framework of the responsible states in the West in their planning and approach to Africa, and that is what impresses them so greatly. They want to see development, prosperity and growth in Africa, because that, they believe, will keep communism out of Africa.

The fact that President Kaunda last year, while he was leading the OAU mission against South Africa to the principle Western capitals was at the same time engaged in negotiations and correspondence with the Prime Minister of South Africa, will cause repercussions not only in Africa, but also in the capitals of the world.

Mr. Chairman, the relationships politics of the Prime Minister in regard to Africa, which was ratified last year by means of two-thirds majority of the people of South Africa, notwithstanding fierce opposition and vilification of the Prime Minister, is the politics of a statesman. It was confirmed again yesterday at Witbank. This is the kind of politics which is going to thwart the isolationist attempts of South Africa’s enemies. This is the politics which is going to give South Africa status and stature in Africa and in the world. This is the politics which is going to yield golden fruit for South Africa and which is going to usher in a glittering era for South Africa in Africa.

Mr. Chairman, before I reply to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, I must first fulfil a duty, as befits one leader of a party to another. I want to congratulate my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition very sincerely on his having retained North Rand. [Interjections.] If the rules of the House had allowed, I should very much have liked to see one of the Whips rise and say to you, Sir, that the hon. member for Durban Point was waiting to be brought in. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put certain questions to me. I want to reply to those questions immediately. Some of them I am only going to reply to in passing, because we have been debating them across the floor of this House for years now.

You have never given a reply.

No, replies have been given, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not want to accept them. He does not want to believe them. He wants to be given the replies that he wants. That is why I honestly believe it is a waste of time to debate these matters across the floor of this House again. I am saying this without any lack of respect to my hon. friend on the opposite side.

I am glad the hon. the Leader of the Opposition touched upon the aspect of foreign policy. He said that he had not yet received any replies from me in that connection. You are, however, aware of the fact, Sr, that on the occasions when I waited for the hon. member to debate these matters with me, he did not do so. In the debate we are now conducting, he referred to them only in passing. I intended dealing with these matters in any case, and I am going to do so now. Just before I come to it, I want to say that I have been informed by the Press that President Kaunda has said that he may perhaps later today issue a Press statement on what I said. I hope he does so before the discussion on my Vote is concluded, because I should like to react to that in Parliament. In that connection I wish to rectify two matters, I see in my Hansard that I said I had stated at the Press conference that I would expose him. That is of course not the case. I said it during the no-confidence debate. I just want to rectify that aspect as far as my Hansard is concerned.

I should also like, in all fairness to President Kaunda, to rectify another matter. In my haste I forgot to refer to it. I want to state that at all the meetings between my envoy and President Kaunda, he received my envoy with the greatest courtesy. I want to place this on record.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me how matters stand with us in the outside world. He and I both agreed yesterday in respect of our relationships with Britain and America. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware of the stirrings there have been in Africa and of the new interest in the affairs of South Africa as far as Africa is concerned. I shall say more about this later. We must now take into account that there are two kinds of opinions on South Africa, viz. an official opinion and an unofficial opinion. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is thoroughly aware of these double standards which apply in the world. Summing up, I may say that as far as the official opinion is concerned—and I said this at the Press conference as well—one cannot, if one wants to be honest, discern a very great difference in climate. But I want to say that in respect of the unofficial opinion —and the unofficial opinion of today is the official opinion of the day after tomorrow—South Africa’s shares have risen and are still rising. Unofficially South Africa is becoming more and more highly regarded.

By whom?

By the thinking people in the Free World. I am surprised the hon. member has not seen it in his crystal ball yet, because it is a fact.

With reference to that question I can give hon. members an obvious example when I talk about the unofficial opinion in respect of South Africa. I can give it to hon. members fresh out of the oven. Where is there a greater topic of discussion at the moment than South Africa, where is more anti-South African propaganda being made at the moment, where is South Africa being slandered to a greater extent by hostile elements at the moment than in Australia? Let us see what effect this had had on the people of Australia. In passing I want to express my appreciation for the attitude of the Australian Prime Minister and others in this connection. But I am now dealing with the unofficial opinion where this extremely malicious propaganda is now operating upon the people. I have here an edition of the Melbourne Herald, dated 30th March. 1971. In this report the Melbourne Herald publishes the result of a Gallup poll held in March of this year. As far as this matter is concerned, the time could not have been more opportune. They contrast the result with a Gallup poll held in November last year, that is, if I am inferring correctly from this report, In any case, they contrast the present survey with the previous survey, and it is of particular significance to us. What do we find? The survey dealt, amongst other things, with the question whether Australia should play cricket against us or not. The Melbourne Herald went out of its way to state in what manner the questions were put to each person. They put it like this—

There was therefore nothing obscure about the question the people had to answer. What are the results of the Melbourne Herald’s Gallup poll? Last year 73 per cent of the people were in favour of the South African cricket tour. In March of this year, after all the propaganda, 85 percent were in favour of the tour. Last year 16 per cent were opposed to it, and this year only 9 per cent were opposed to it. Last year 11 per cent were undecided; this year 6 per cent were undecided. Now hon. members may say that the Australians are mad about cricket and that this is the reason for the results. In the same Gallup poll, however, a question was put in regard to the question of arms being supplied to South Africa. This is also a very delicate matter, and this question was asked in last year’s survey as well. The results of the survey are equally significant in this regard. Last year only 20 per cent were in favour of arms being supplied to South Africa. In March of this year it increased to 35 per cent. That means that the percentage increased by 15 within a few months. Last year 39 per cent were opposed to it, and this year 34 per cent were opposed to it, a decrease of 5 per cent. Last year 41 per cent were undecided, and in March of this year only 31 per cent were undecided. It is difficult to gauge public opinion or international opinion and to determine precisely what it is. Here I now have something concrete indicating the result to me. Can hon. members now understand why I say that unofficially South Africa is gaining ground?

In addition, one still has one’s contacts and people pass through one’s office every day of the week. Many of them are prominent foreign visitors, and if I have to base my opinion on that, I have to say that, especially unofficially, a greater understanding of South Africa is developing. There is, however, one sector where there is no greater understanding of South Africa and where there is no greater sympathy for South Africa either. There the opposition has increased violently and vehemently. This is in the communist sector. There opposition to South Africa has become razor-sharp. But I have often told hon. members that this would be the case. I have said in Parliament and I foreshadowed in my New Year message that these communist onslaughts and the propaganda against South Africa would intensify to the extent to which South Africa was gaining ground. We must expect this, and we must expect it in future; it cannot be otherwise. But I am not alarmed by it, because I am convinced in my heart of hearts that, as far as South Africa is concerned, time is on our side. I do owe it to this House to say this, even though not everyone agrees with me. I really and truly believe it, because the truth will ultimately prevail. To my mind what is at stake here is not the National Party, but South Africa. Surely hon. members on the opposite side know as well as I do that if they condemn South Africa they are condemning not only us, but themselves as well. Our enemies refer to the United Party’s policy as a “milder form of apartheid”. They do not see the United Party as being separate from us. The judgment passed on us, is passed on the United Party as well. To tell the truth, there are times when they do not even spot the hon. member for Houghton.

In reply now to the question put by the hon. member, I want to say that unofficially I see a breath of fresh air stirring. I do not want to describe it in any other terms here today. I want to say that unofficially we are continuing to make progress. We are making progress amongst those people with whom we want to make progress. If we give in to the demands of the communist world, we will be the most popular corpse there has ever been in the world. But that we do not want to be, and that is not what we are aiming at either.

As far as Africa is concerned, I just want to say that there is a welcome interest in South Africa on the part of African leaders. Hon. members have read it in the Press, and it is not necessary for me to refer to it again. I just want to reiterate for the sake of the record and for the sake of those outside, not for the sake of hon. members on this side of the House, that I am prepared to hold talks with any African leader on the level, as is fitting, of one leader to another. In other words, I am prepared to hold talks with them on an equal footing, as we have done in the past and as we shall do in future as well. I am prepared to discuss any matter with them. I want to emphasize what I said at the Press conference, viz. that the one thing I shall welcome discussing with them is the policy of my Government. I am very keen to discuss my policy. I am prepared to discuss it with anyone and I should like to discuss it with African leaders in particular, because I know what a distorted version they have been given of my policy.

I should like to rectify and place in its proper perspective that distorted version of my policy which has been conveyed to them. I do not mind being pilloried for what I am, but I certainly do not want to be pilloried for what I am not. I shall therefore welcome discussing it with them in this way. I look forward with interest to the Press conference which it has been announced the Leader of the Ivory Coast, President Houphouet-Boigny, if I am correct, will hold next week. He is an eminent and cultivated person, well grounded in politics. I shall find it interesting to see what this West African leader has to say about these matters. These stirrings are not confined to that leader only; there are stirrings in the case of many others as well. I want to give this House the assurance that, as far as I am concerned, I will leave no stone unturned to improve these relationships and to have them run smoothly, if they are established. I think I have shown, with my visit to Malawi, with President Banda’s visit to South Africa later this year, with my reception of the Prime Minister of Swaziland and his retinue and my reception of other Black leaders who have been here, that we are doing this in the correct manner, as it should be done.

I believe that all these things we have done, have already yielded and will still yield good results. You see, Sir, there is one point that my hon. friend and colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I have brought home to them—our policy of separate development, as we have been expounding it over the years, is not an export product. I have often said in this House that there are many things we want to export, but that our policy has been conceived for circumstances here in South Africa for the reasons I have mentioned in that connection and which we have often in the past debated across the floor of this House. If time allows, I may possibly discuss this again later; but there are still many other aspects I have to deal with. Consequently, when the hon. the Leader talks in his speech about “pressures that have become stronger”, I want to give him the assurance that that pressure originated from communist sources and not from non-communist sources.

I am grateful that the hon. member referred to the role which agitators could play in South Africa. I want to agree with him wholeheartedly on the matter of the damage they could do. I have since 1961, when I became Minister of Justice, been sounding warnings from time to time. Hon. members can, if they like, go back on my tracks and look up my record; my warnings have never been to no purpose or without reason. I have never cried “Wolf, Wolf”! simply because I felt like doing so. I want to warn again now that there are certain Whites in South Africa who are doing things that better people than they tried to do in the past, and failed. I want to warn those Whites. I want to issue this warning to a few of the present leaders of Nusas; “Remember Adrian Leftwich and others. I have summed you up. You cannot hold a candle to him and others. Do not try to play that same game. You are going to run into very great trouble.” But at the same time I also want to warn the parents, as I did last time. Do you know, Sir, I called a few of those parents to my office before the trouble started and said to them: “In heaven’s name, watch what your children are doing.” They did not listen to me. Later, when the children were sitting in gaol, they realized what had been happening. I now want to make an appeal to parents, with all the earnestness at my command, in regard not only to subversive matters, but to all matters. I want to ask the parents: “Do you know what your children are occupying themselves with every day?” I spoke to one of those boys, and he told me that the reason for his being in his predicament was that his parents did not care a rap what he did and never even asked where he was. Consequently I want to make an earnest appeal to parents. We must not always try to play nursemaid to our children, but we must give our children a chance and occasion to cultivate a sense of responsibility. But every child wants to know that his parents take an interest in him and that in the last instance his parents exercise authority over him. Particularly as far as this question of subversion is concerned, there are young people who are playing with fire at the moment. It is in this connection that I want to issue a serious warning. But not only are there young people who are playing with fire; there are also older people who are playing with fire. To them I want to say that they will go the same way as their predecessors.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also raised the matter of the urban Bantu. This is a matter which has often been argued here. I want to inform the hon. member that he is not the only one who is concerned about the question of families; this side of the House is most certainly as concerned about it as he and his side are. But, Sir, we must be realistic in this connection. After all, hon. members opposite agree with me that we must have influx control, that we cannot allow an uncontrolled influx. The question of housing alone, to leave aside the other factors for the moment, precludes certain things from being done. Surely all of us understand this. Why make such a fuss about it then? What I think is at the back of the hon. member’s mind is the question of political rights for the urbanized Bantu. That is a matter on which we differ. The standpoint of this side of the House is that the urbanized Bantu will not get political rights in this Parliament. Surely the hon. member knows that; it has been our standpoint all these years. What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition may also be interested in, is proprietary rights for the urbanized Bantu within the White area. This is also a matter that we have frequently discussed here. In principle we regard it as being wrong; hence this party adheres irrevocably to the standpoint that such proprietary rights cannot be granted. What can we achieve by discussing it further now? My hon. friend says we must grant such rights, and we say that we have considered this matter very thoroughly and that we cannot do so. I think it would be wrong, just as it would be wrong to grant the Whites proprietary rights in any respect whatsoever within the territory of the Black man. In respect of all these things we have a declared standpoint.

I think I have now replied to all the points raised, at least as far as is necessary for the purposes of this debate.

Are you in a position yet to give us any information about the programme for Dr. Banda’s visit, the time and the duration?

Unfortunately, I cannot as yet say what the duration of the visit will be; the arrangements have not yet been finalized. However, as soon as the arrangements have been finalized, I shall make the information available to hon. members.

I shall start where the hon the Prime Minister left off. i.e. with the urban Bantu. He stated that his side had always been as interested in family life for these people as we on this side of the House were. He raised the housing problem inter alia. But that, with great respect, is a red herring, and the hon. gentleman knows it. His problem is that he does not want these people to feel that this is their home: he wants them to feel that their only home is in the homelands. That is an ideological approach and has nothing to do with the practical problem of housing. He suggests that I am raising this matter because I am interested in political rights for these people in the White areas. I particularly did not raise that point because I wanted to discuss this matter on the merits of the practical problems with which we are faced, without going into ideological questions. So, this was another red herring of the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman also spoke about home ownership and said it was wrong in principle. But according to what principle is that wrong, Mr. Chairman? Why is it wrong for a foreign worker to be able to buy his own home, live in it while he is there and sell it when he goes? Why was it not wrong for the Whites in the Transkei to have home ownership, some still have it at the present time? With great respect, Sir, the Prime Minister has not answered my points on these issues. His general attitude seems to be: We have discussed this before and consequently we are just wasting time in discussing it further. But yet this is one of the most important issues in South Africa, if not the most important one. And it is so from the point of view of the White man and not so much from the point of view of the Black man; because look what terrible mistakes we are making. We have these Bantu in the urban Bantu townships but under the policy of the Government more and more of these are becoming contract Bantu. They are being turned round too frequently for them to receive proper training and so to become really efficient workers. We suffer as a result.

But there is yet another point. Sooner or later they are going to be organized from outside the White areas of the Republic. If any of the Bantustans get independence, they will form their own organization of workers and will make demands in respect of the conditions under which they will be prepared to come and work here in South Africa. We already have it that the Chief Minister of the Transkei complains about the conditions of labour of his own people working inside South Africa. What is going to happen, sooner or later? Sooner or later they are going to organize their own organizations inside the homelands and lay down their own conditions under which they will be prepared to come and work here.

But there is yet a third thing that is happening. Because of the way in which we are running this business at the moment, because of the difficulty of getting replacements, because of all the red tape that is involved, we are finding that in nearly every industry today, particularly so in the building trade, they are trying to carry more workers than they actually need in order to enable them to fulfil contracts when these come along and not be caught in a position where they are short of labour. I think there can hardly be anything more wasteful and inefficient for our industries at the present time.

I have outlined many times before our approach to this matter and the hon. the Prime Minister must be aware of it. He must appreciate that we on both sides of the House have to accept, whether he likes it or not, that we are going to have Bantu workers in our urban townships working for ps permanently, as long as there is a Republic of South Africa. There is no doubt about that. Nothing the hon. the Prime Minister can do, short of closing down all the factories and removing everything into the border areas, can prevent the fact that we are going to have non-White workers permanently inside our White areas; they are going to stay there; they are going to be on our farms, in our factories, on our mines and in our homes. If we want to survive as a White group, there is something else both sides have to accept. That is that we have to treat those Bantu permanently in our White areas differently from the manner in which the Bantu in the homelands are being treated. Do you know, Sir, it is because this Government has for 20 years refused to accept this simple truth and has tried by legislation to avoid facing up to it that we have become so unpopular in the outside world, because of the sort of legislation which the Government has been putting on the Statute Book.

I want to remind the hon. gentleman that in my opening address I said that the time had come for a new approach to this problem. I think in approaching this problem there are certain things we have to accept as axiomatic, and when I say that I am quite confident I have the support of tens of thousands of good Nationalist supporters of the hon. the Prime Minister in respect of these issues. I think the first thing we have to accept is that the theory that separate development is going to remove discrimination is absolute poppy-cook. It is just not happening, Sir, and it will not happen became unless it can move the Bantu from our factories in our great industrial complexes or from the newly established industries on the borders of the homelands, then separate development as applied by this Government demands discrimination against these people. It is only when you face up to that fact that you can decide the sort of things that must be done and properly done.

Sir, I think it is also accepted by both sides that there must be consultation. We disagree as to the manner of consultation; that does not matter. What is vitally important is that there must be consultation with these people as to their needs and requirements. I think we have to make it absolutely clear to them that as far as we are concerned, we believe that there are certain things that ought to be done but a prerequisite is that it must be absolutely clear that we can ensure and will ensure equal justice before the law in South Africa. We know the high reputation of our courts. We know that that is something easy to do, but we have to get away from this belief that there is discrimination against them in our law courts and under our laws.

Then. Sir, we have to provide better opportunities for every person to make the most of himself. We may disagree on how to do it but let us agree that that is a principle that must be accepted. I say again that we have got to build up a property-owning middle class of Bantu as a bulwark against the agitator in our Bantu townships. We have got to give them a real stake in the maintenance of law and order in South Africa. Sir, the way in which we apply influx control and the pass laws at the present time—we both agree that influx control and the pass laws are necessary—is making many hundreds of thousands of criminals out of comparatively innocent people every year in South Africa. They make acquaintance with the law in that way for the first time. It seems to me that we have got to look at this system again. We had another system in the old United Party days. There were certain groups of people who were given exemption. Why can that not be re-examined, Mr. Chairman? The goodwill which that would engender could be worth infinite sums in dividends to the White people of South Africa. That is something that we can tackle together in this House. Let us look at this system again. If we go on as we are doing, we are making for trouble and bad feeling and we are making for the acquaintance of these people with the wrong side of our legal system and our system of justice in South Africa.

Then Sir, it is quite clear that we have got to make our labour force more mobile. I know the hon. the Minister is moving in that direction, but he is moving at a snail’s pace in a jet age.

We have got to look at this matter again. We have got to make changes here or we will not get the best use from our labour force. Then we have to look at the education system again. There is a very strong case for better educational facilities, more efforts to give them free primary and secondary education so far as we can afford it, more efforts to make free books available to them, and more efforts to give them a squarer deal. Then there is this business of family life. The hon. the Minister gets up and says that what the Whites get in the Black areas, the Blacks will get in the White areas. With great respect, we all know the difficulties, but can he tell me whether there is a single Black area where a White man cannot take his wife if he gets employment there? Why talk this nonsense in this House? (Time expired.]

This afternoon the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned and referred to an official and an unofficial opinion of South Africa in overseas circles. Arising out of that I should like to refer to the case of Mr. Patrick Wall, who illustrated that statement of the Prime Minister’s in quite a striking way.

Mr. Patrick Wall is quite well known in South Africa as a result of his interest in African affairs and specifically in South African affairs. He was, and I think he is still, a member of the British Parliament, but in 1962 he was also inter alia a member of the British delegation to the U.N. Now it is Quite interesting to see what Mr. Patrick Wall, as representative of the British Government in 1962. had to say in his official capacity about the policy of this Government. These were his words to the U.N., In an official capacity, on behalf of his Government—

These are the kind of phrases we often hear. These are what is more, phrases one sometimes hears in this country as well. These are phrases, these are statements of opinion, and these are evaluations originating from people who have usually not given any thought to South Africa’s problems, or originating from people who represent certain bodies or groups, including political groups. Now it is very interesting to see what Mr. Patrick Wall began to write only a year later in the London Times. Only a year after he had said at the U.N. that “apartheid was morally abominable, intellectually grotesque and spiritually indefensible”, he was no longer a representative at the U.N. Now he is acting in his private capacity—he has given some thought to the problem, and now he has to give a different account in a different manner. He says this—

Shortly afterwards, in 1964, he writes as follows—

This is quite close to the policy of the Opposition party. According to this writer people held this opinion in 1960. He went on to say—

This is what a man wrote, two years after he had characterized this Government’s policy as something which was “morally abominable, intellectually grotesque and spiritually indefensible”. Subsequently he was, as it were, zealously defining and defending our problems. I think this illustrates in a striking way the statement made by our Prime Minister.

Now I want, with all due respect to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to make another point. There are a few matters which I find extremely vexing. The United Party accuses us of beating the drum of Black peril. Can they tell me why they are afraid when it comes to the independence of the Bantu peoples? They say that we are afraid of the Black people, but what are they afraid of then? Is it not because of fear that they cannot perform that act of faith? That is my first question.

Secondly, there is some moralizing, and great concern is being expressed about the political rights of the Bantu in our urban areas. The Opposition maintains that these people should be afforded greater stability and that the growth of a good middle-class group of citizens among the Bantu should be accelerated. We are concerned about matters of this nature. There are certain ideals which all of us would like to see realized in this life, but we are working with realities. We are working with historical realities. I take it the United Party will also want to give those people limited political rights, but how can one ultimately say that it is morally correct to do this and then deprive that particular group of people of a political destination? How can one ultimately deprive the millions of people who are being discussed now, of that principle as well. On what moral grounds whatsoever can one refuse this? On the one hand they say that it is for moral reasons that they want to give those people these rights in the urban areas, but where is that morality when it comes to the fundamental political rights, the political and constitutional rights, in terms of which the Bantu. But ultimately work out their own destination? How is the United Party policy going to fit into the South African context? Why do they not reply to the question I put to them yesterday? Why do they not tell us what the effect of their eight representatives here is going to be? How are they going to arrange an election on that basis? There are more than eight ethnic groups among the Bantu. Are the Zulus going to receive 1½ representatives, and the Xhosas 1¾ Why are they keeping up this charade? Why do they not admit that they are standing on a small island surrounded by precipices? On that small island they want to open up the sluice gates, so that we will for a little while still be able to live well economically, and then all relationships between all ethnic groups will collapse. They know it. I cannot imagine that any person who knows that twice two is four can still think that one can in these times keep on harping on that theme. I cannot understand it. I can understand our debating other matters, but I cannot understand how they can still in regard to these basic principles adopt that standpoint. I want to make an appeal to them this afternoon. They say that we should adopt a new approach, but can they not realise that their approach is being rejected by the march of events, both at home and abroad, and that it is our approach which still keeps the wheels turning, even though it creates certain problems. Why do they not try to make a positive contribution in that respect? That is the invitation we are holding out to them.

Mr. Chairman, we are very pleased that the hon. gentleman ultimately returned to the issue which is under discussion, because he went overseas to find Mr. Patrick Wall and all sorts of other people to support his point of view. We happen to know Mr. Patrick Wall very well. We have invited him out here frequently in the past. If Mr. Patrick Wall has changed his views on South Africa, I think that this particular side of the House should receive thanks for that.

The hon. gentleman now read us a little lecture on the ultimate disposition of all these Black nations and said that we have no plan for them. But may I ask him then what is his plan for the Coloured people and for the Indians? Where are they going to have this ultimate disposition? The whole thing falls completely flat. It has no base to stand on at all.

I should like to return to an issue which the hon. the Prime Minister raised. It really surprised me when the hon. the Prime Minister said that his side of the House has consistently, throughout the years, told not only the people of South Africa, but the whole of the outside world exactly what the policy of his party was. The hon. the Prime Minister is beginning to lose contact with the situation, because this policy of the Government side has gone through a very marked change. Do we not all remember that when Dr. Malan stood here, he told us that the policy of that side of the House was apartheid? Today apartheid has become a swear word; it is never used by that side of the House any more. It certainly was used as a stage to introduce a series of legal enactments which have with almost Teutonic thoroughness been grafted on to our society, so that today the Black man is subjected to more than 80 major laws and dozens of regulations which regulate practically every aspect of his life. Only the other day the Government issued the Venda Staff Regulations running into 28C pages. It is an immense piece of work. All that we are left with are all these laws.

But when Mr. Strydom was Prime Minister of South Africa, he said the policy of his side of the House is “Blanke baasskap”. That, at least, had the merits of political honesty. But what surprises us today, is that the ardent followers of that gentleman who sat there and supported him so consistently throughout these years, should now have swung around to the extent that they deny the very policy that they shaped. What is worse, is that they should take the worst features of that policy and try and assign it to this side of the House. I want to get to this consistency of the policy that the hon. the Prime Minister refers to. In the early days of Dr. Verwoerd, his approach was quite clear on this issue. I drew attention to this before. When he spoke in the Senate in 1951, he discarded this whole idea of independent Black states in South Africa. He said it was completely impossible. In volume 2, column 2893 of the Senate Hansard he said:

How could small scattered states arise? The areas will be economically and otherwise dependent on the Union. It stands to reason that when we say that the Protectorates should be incorporated in South Africa and at the same time talk about the Natives’ rights of self-government in those areas, we cannot mean that we intend by that to cut large slices out of South Africa and turn them into independent states.

If words have any meaning, what does that mean? Dr. Verwoerd was diametrically opposed to this policy. He said that one only had to look at the map of South Africa to see that it is impracticable. Then, all of a sudden, he came under foreign pressures and overnight we had this major change. What had been apartheid before, then became separate freedoms.

It is the same policy.

Well, that is precisely our problem. Now we hear less and less of separate freedoms, because there is less and less separation and a greater section of the South African community has less freedom. Now that separate freedoms are beginning to run into trouble, the hon. the Prime Minister is trying to introduce a new dimension into this problem. He now says that it is no longer a multi-racial problem that we face, but South Africa must become multi-national. What do these words mean? If I have an African who is my garden boy, who lives in the backyard and who works in my garden, I understand that it is multi-racial. He is subject to all the laws, the rules and the regulations which exist at the present time. Now, if he becomes multi-national, if he becomes a foreign citizen, how does that change his position? This does not make sense to us; this is just a new way of perpetuating the same myth. We must he guided on this issue by the spokesman on these matters, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I want to ask this Committee what we can derive from this sort of statement by the hon. the Minister. Recently he said over the radio that the policy of his Government was—

Well, this is a kind of political mumbo-jumbo which does not mean a thing. Then the hon. the Prime Minister is surprised that the people overseas are confuted and do not know what the policy of this Government is.

To begin with, there has been an absolute somersault, and secondly, when you are given this kind of directive, nobody knows what it means. The problem which we face is that the Government is trying to reconcile two conflicting elements. In the first instance there is the desire for separation, which is real, but which is also artificially inflated by that side of the House. Secondly, we have economic interdependence, and this seems to have a built-in momentum so that the more we progress, the more intdependent we become. At the present time you could not operate profitably more than six gold-mines in South Africa without the non-White labour which we have. Although you can move factories to the homelands, you cannot move a goldmine to the homelands. All the time we are progressing economically, we are becoming more and more interdependent.

This whole issue was put before us by two commissions, the Fagan Commission and the Tomlinson Commission. We can look today at what the Fagan Commission said more than 20 years ago with almost prophetic insight. In their report they dismissed the policy of total separation and they also said that disregarding colour differences had no future in South Africa. They ended up by saying—

Nothing has happened over the past 20 years to change that situation by one bit. The Government had their opportunity. They appointed the Tomlinson Commission and then they killed that commission themselves by refusing to accept its fundamental recommendations. The result is that today we are still going through the motions. It is like a chicken which has had its neck wrung, but is still flapping about, but will never run any more. That scheme never even got under way because the Government lacked the courage to make the fundamental sacrifices that were necessary for its fulfilment.

What does this Government offer to the detribalized, non-homeland Africans who live and who work in our cities? They are told that they will have the inalienable right to self-determination in their own areas. However, this is used as justification for subjecting them to the most blatant form of discrimination in the areas in which they live and work. Their fundamental right to occupational advancement in the areas where jobs exist is circumscribed, but they are told that the “sky is the limit” in areas where no jobs exist. They are told that they cannot have their fundamental right to have some form of political participation in the areas in which they live. But in turn they are granted illusionary rights in areas where they do not live. How could anybody in his right senses stand up and say that this is a solution to the race problem in South Africa and that it will lead to peaceful coexistence? Then it is even held out that it is a formula for not only ourselves, but it is a magic formula for the whole of the outside world; the mind boggles at the temerity of it all.![Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to start off by telling the hon. the Prime Minister that I take the strongest exception to the insinuations that he made about me last night. He has told us that he is a frank man. He boasted to us that, if anything, he is a frank man. I would very much like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister in future, or perhaps even at the present time, if he intends to make any accusations against me of any kind, to make them in the form I can understand, which other hon. members in this House can understand and to which I will then be able to reply. The hon. the Prime Minister is still used to his role of a sort of super policeman, the man who locked people up without trial, never having to tell them what they did wrong. To some measure he carries this over in his attitude in this House and as I say I take the strongest exception. I want to know exactly what he is accusing me of so that I will then be able to reply and either to admit guilt or to prove my innocence. I think I am at least entitled to that. Of course I listened with the greatest of interest to the hon. the Prime Minister’s account of the difficulties he has been having in trying to arrange a meeting with President Kaunda. By the way, when he told us all this, he did not mention that President Kaunda, I think it was in 1964, offered to exchange diplomats officially with South Africa. I think I am right when I say that that offer was never accepted, [Interjections] That is not important. The principle of it is important. I am sorry that the hon.· the Prime Minister had all these difficulties. I must say that my own experience, was very different. I did not have the slightest difficulty in arranging a meeting with President Kaunda. It was a very simple matter for a mutual friend to suggest that it would be a very good idea if I met President Kaunda. I also thought it would be a good idea and the matter was fixed very easily indeed.

Enough said.

That hon. Minister must not start making accusations he cannot substantiate. I am quite prepared to say that the fact that the party that I represent is a party which is prepared to reject race discrimination entirely as the basis for policies in this country, may very well have had something to do with the fact that I was indeed able to see President Kaunda so easily. I might say that I too, like the hon. the Prime Minister’s envoy, got a very cordial reception, and that it was a very interesting experience meeting President Kaunda. He is a man of great personal charm … [Interjections.] Indeed, I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that for personal charm President Kaunda can give cards and spades to most of the members of this House. I want to say this quite clearly. He is also intelligent and outgoing. I also want to say at once that we certainly did not agree about everything. There were many basic subjects on which we disagreed, but the reason, I say, why I was able to see him and why I did get such a good reception was simply because I represent a party which rejects race discrimination as the basis of policy. This is also my personal view and he knew this.

The other day I read in Die Burger that the President of Senegal is also prepared to have dialogue with people who reject race discrimination and he mentioned the Opposition Liberal Party. He meant us of course. I thought the hon. the Prime Minister rather contemptuously dismissed the whole issue of the so-called Lusaka Manifesto, as he called it. when he discussed the whole Kaunda episode. I do not think it is a very clever thing to do, if the hon. the Prime Minister is sincere, as I believe him to be, in his desire to have dialogue with African leaders in other states. By the way, he has now said that he is prepared to discuss apartheid. Up till very recently he has said that he will have dialogue provided that apartheid is not discussed.

Nonsense.

It is not nonsense. The interesting thing is that what the hon. the Prime Minister thinks of as discussion may be rather different from what the African leaders are thinking of as discussion. They are thinking of discussing apartheid in such a way that it might be possible to persuade the hon. the Prime Minister that relations with the other African states would be better if at least some deviations were made from apartheid, if at least the direction were changed. The hon. the Prime Minister is thinking of dialogue, of course, in terms of Mr. M. C. Botha’s discussion and dialogue. He is going to tell them where they are wrong about apartheid.

So what?

I will tell the hon. the Minister what. I do not believe that these discussions are going to be very fruitful at all.

Now I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that Mr. Ofori-Atta, who is Ghana’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, is prepared to have a dialogue, as he said. But he sees it in terms of the Lusaka Manifesto. The hon. the Prime Minister should not dismiss this manifesto, because it is very important to the African States. I do not believe that very many members in this House even know what the Lusaka Manifesto contains. I wonder how many of them even know when it was issued. I will tell them, because I do not believe they do know. It was issued in April of 1969, as a result of a so-called summit conference which was held in Lusaka and attended by East and Central African states, 14 different countries in all. They adopted this manifesto which, if it is carefully read, certainly contains many condemnatory things about apartheid, South Africa and minority White governments. But I believe also that, if properly read, it contains a ray of hope that some sort of compromise can be reached, particularly as regards the pace of change in the countries which the countries that signed the Lusaka Manifesto felt were discriminating against Black citizens.

Did it help Rhodesia?

No, they are very anti-Rhodesia. Just as Rhodesia is considered to have an illegal government by practically every country in the world, so does the Lusaka Manifesto make mention of the fact that Rhodesia, of course had an illegal U.D.I., and they are against the Rhodesian Government.

Yes, but it was before U.D.I.

It did not take place before U.D.I.

Oh yes!

U.D.I. was more than five years ago. The conference took place in 1969, for the edification of the hon. the Minister of Sport. They had lots to say, too, about Portuguese control of Mozambique and Angola, obviously. But when they came to the Southern African situation generally, having made it clear that they reject race discrimination as a basis of policy, they made, I believe, an important statement to the effect that they recognize that there are going to be difficulties in the transitional stage where changes are introduced. They are quite prepared to leave the arrangements and the pace of change to the countries concerned. I think that is very important. They also say that no claim is made that Africa belongs only to Black Africans. They do not want to change simply from the present system of White domination to another system of racial domination. They are prepared to discuss terms. Therefore I think it is absolutely essential, if the hon. the Prime Minister wants to have any meaningful dialogue at all with the other African states, as he says he does, that he should direct his attentions to the Lusaka Manifesto.

You are behind the times. We discussed that in this House two years ago.

Well, I am sorry, but what the hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday, did not, in fact, give me any hope that he was prepared to put any confidence in the opinions and the views which were expressed at the time of the issue of the Lusaka Manifesto.

I might say, if I am not wrong—the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will tell me if I am wrong—I seem to recollect reading somewhere that President Nixon, and the hon. the Prime Minister said our relationship with the United States was improving, also said that he made the Lusaka Manifesto a starting point of his Southern African policy. I believe I am right in saving that. So we cannot simply remain indifferent to it. We have to take cognizance of this manifesto. [Time expired.]

Read my Hansard of two years ago.

Let me reply to the hon. member in a few short sentences before I proceed to deal with another subject. She referred to the fact that I had levelled certain accusations at her.

Insinuations.

What I said is to be found in Hansard. As the hon. member correctly stated the other day, we have grown old together in this House; consequently it is not necessary for us to bluff one another. Let me tell the hon. member that she knows exactly and I know exactly what I meant when I used those words.

You may know; I do not.

She knows exactly; it is to be found in Hansard. She argued that President Kaunda in 1964 offered to exchange diplomats with South Africa. But may I remind her that countries do not exchange diplomats from platforms; that is not the way in which it is done. If the hon. member would care to go back and find out what actually happened she would find that that is exactly what President Kaunda did, i.e. he said in public that he was prepared to exchange diplomats with South Africa provided this, that and the other—a whole string of things— were taken into account. But he never approached us officially; it remained a platform speech only. That is not the way in which to exchange diplomats; for that matter, it is not even good manners.

As far as the hon. member’s visit to Zambia is concerned, I am sorry to have to disillusion her. I met a journalist who was in Zambia after she had been there. Although I cannot vouch for the truth of it, he told me candidly when I asked him what impression the hon. member made in Zambia, that they laughed at her behind her back. But as I say, I cannot vouch for the truth of it. The hon. member may want to find out whether that is in fact so or not.

*In his first speech on my Vote the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred, along with the many other aspects he raised, to the question of sport. I think this is the obvious time for us to devote a few moments to this topic and conduct a fruitful discussion on it.

Over the week-end the hon. the Leader of the Opposition held a meeting, subsequent to which he issued a statement on his views on this matter. He was kind enough to let me have, at my request, a copy of that statement so that it would not be necessary for me to rely on newspaper reports. Consequently, before dealing with my own standpoint, I just want to make a few references to the standpoint adopted by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to read out this statement of his in its entirety, because it is fortunately a short one. The statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on 17th April reads as follows—

†There, of course, I am at one with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In this connection I refer to the statement I made in 1967. I continue—

That, of course, is the traditional standpoint of both sides of the House.

Not at Bloemfontein.

The hon.

member knows what the position was there and how that came about. I read further—

Nobody has other views as far as I know—

I dealt with that, Sir, in my statement in 1967 and I will again deal with it today—

I take that to mean the Boxing Control Board and the Wrestling Control Board, which are old, established boards—

That, of course, is also to be found in my statement of 1967—

I will be pleased if the hon. member will clarify one point for me in the latter part of his statement. In this part of his statement the hon. member says that the United Party will consider making these relaxations, but then the statement goes on to say—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will do me a favour if, when he speaks later on, he will clarify this one point for me, and tell me whether he and the United Party have already decided that they want this mixed sport or whether they will still consider it if and when they are asked to do so. This a perfectly fair question. [Interjections.] I am not making a point of it; I am just asking for clarity. In the same paragraph he says—

Then the hon. member goes on to say he will do this, that and the other thing. I want to know whether what he says at the end of the statement is qualified by the words “would be prepared to consider” or not. That is all I am asking.

*That is the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In the course of my press conference I indicated that I would discuss sports matters in the course of this debate, and, more specifically, that I would on this occasion discuss non-White participation in sport. Now, I want to agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that sport is important. I also want to put it to the House as my view that one cannot underestimate the importance of sport. Everyone of us would be making a mistake if we underestimated in any way the national as well as the international importance of sport. Although it is primarily recreation, recreation for the individual or recreation for a group of individuals in a team, it has in our time become more than that. Accordingly one would be making a mistake if one underestimated its importance. But, on the other hand, I also want to state my view that one would abo be making a mistake if one over-estimated its importance. There are certain interests which are more important and are to be prized more highly than sporting interests, namely the interests of a country and of its people. One must make no mistake about that, and in spite of the fact that I myself am a sportsman and like participating in sport, that I have an intense interest in all branches of sport and will go out of my way not only to attend sports meetings, but also to encourage sport. I think we would be making a mistake if we were to put the interests of sport before the interests of South Africa as a whole. I want to make it very clear that I on my part—irrespective of what the standpoint of other people is—shall not be prepared to put the interests of sport before those of South Africa as I see them, and by virtue of my position I am responsible for them for the moment.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now mentioned it, and I want to associate myself with it. When one states a sports policy, it depends on whether one adopts the attitude that South Africa is a multi-racial country, or whether one adopts the attitude that South Africa is a multinational (veelvolkige) country. I, on my part, adopt the attitude of multi-nationality, and I want to make it clear that I do not stand alone in this regard, but that our forebears, our predecessors in the sphere of sport, adopted this same attitude, although they did not formulate it in this way.

May I just interrupt? Would you explain which English translation you prefer for “veelvolkige”?

The normal translation I prefer is “multi-national”.

Not “multi-people”?

It does not matter to me. I do not know whether there is a difference between the two, but I am content to speak of “multi-national” as the English translation for “veelvolkige”. That is the way I use it. If there is a better word, I should be glad to receive it from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I believe that I do not stand alone in my views in that regard. I believe that my predecessors and those of all of us viewed it in that light, for this is the way it has been traditionally. Nobody can deny that. Before there was any law or regulation whatsoever against it, in so far as there are regulations and laws against it, every population group practised its sport separately in South Africa. That is how we have developed. That is how it has been over the years. Nobody can contradict me in respect of that cardinal fact. That was the case because they adopted that attitude, and for no other reason whatsoever. If there were other reasons, I should very much like to hear them. For that reason I want to adopt that attitude and apply it to the situation as it exists at the moment. One should like to apply it on the basis of certain branches of sport. Each branch of sport has, in turn, developed along different lines. One cannot, without making alterations, superimpose the set of rules of one branch of sport on another. Each branch of sport has developed in a different manner. From the nature of the case I cannot, in the space of time at my disposal, cover all branches of sport. I can only indicate certain guidelines on the basis of some of those branches of sport.

Let us take rugby and cricket as they have developed here in South Africa, not only a national level domestically, but also with respect to the relations established abroad. The Whites organized themselves into the Cricket Board and the Rugby Board. They established relations, not with the whole world, but with certain countries, such as Britain, Australia, New Zealand and, in the case of rugby, France as well. This was the relationship established by a White body, as it was organized and as it had developed constitutionally, with Britain, New Zealand, Australia and France. That body did not represent the whole of South Africa. The rest of the people of South Africa, i.e. the Coloured people, had been organized into another body. This is something that must be understood very clearly. The two bodies have nothing to do with each other. In other words, the body which established the sports relations was the one which consisted of the Whites as they had organized it. As far as cricket is concerned, it is interesting that notwithstanding the fact that the West Indies, Pakistan and India have been playing cricket for many years and that there was nothing whatsoever in South Africa to prevent the cricketplaying people of South Africa from establishing relations with them, they never did so. There was nothing to prohibit it, but they simply never did so. This is a historical fact which one must take into account.

In the course of my press conference I said I believed the time had arrived for the non-Whites to be afforded the opportunity of participating in international sport: they had to be afforded the opportunity of not only participating in international sport, but also improving the standard of their sport in South Africa, for if one wishes to practise sport it is in the nature of things a case of the better one does it. the better it is. This is not something I have merely been saying as from today; I have been saying it for a long time. There may be people who will differ with me on this matter. They have every right to differ, but I believe the matter has to be improved within the national context of each of those groups. I have thought this matter over and discussed it with sportsmen representing various branches of sport.

The Rugby Board felt that the time had arrived that they, when inviting a rugby team to tour South Africa, such as the British who are coming here next year, suggested to the British Rudby Board that, if it met with their approval—it depends exclusively on them—provision could be made in the tour programme for a match against the Coloured rugby-playing public here in South Africa. As hon. members know, there is a tour contract in which all these points are stipulated, and they were also prepared to offer to the Rugby Board of Britain to make provision in the tour programme for a match against the Black rugby-playing people of South Africa. Of course, the Coloureds and the Black people have been organized into different associations. They asked me what stand I would take on the matter. I said that I could see no objection to it, and such an invitation has in fact been extended. I understand the match against the Coloureds will be played in Athlone. in the Coloured area. The spectators there, owing to the accommodation problem, will exclusively be Coloureds. The only Whites who will be present there, will be the Rugby Board officials needed in connection with this match. In respect of the Bantu, that match will be played eithed in Umlazi or in Soweto, and the same rule will apply in that regard.

The principle stated here in respect of rugby, will also apply in respect of a cricket team which comes to South Africa, and also in respect of other teams which visit our country. This is another facet which I discussed with the cricket administrators.

By cricket administrators, do you mean the official Board or merely individuals?

I mean individuals on the official Board.

As representing the views of the Board?

No, I did not ask for their views on the matter. I say that I conveyed my standpoint to them.

I have said that the various branches of sport have developed along different lines. In dealing with the tennis aspect now, I must take cognizance of the fact that a certain development has taken place in respect of tennis, i.e. that certain international tournaments are being played all over the world. I understand that, in the main, there are three such tournaments. These tournaments are international in the fullest sense of the word, and certain privileges, etc., flow from participation in these tournaments. Hon. members may have seen in the Press that many people are of the opinion that an international sports centre should be established in South Africa. [Interjections.] This is no laughing matter. I should very gladly support such an idea. I think it would be an excellent idea if we could establish something of that nature. I hope that such a centre of a truly high standard will eventually be established in South Africa. There are indisputable examples of the benefits this may hold for a country. But it goes without saying that it will take time and money before such a centre can be established. In that case we have here what A. G. Visser wrote in one of his lyrics, namely “If you do not have what you love, then love what you have”.

One must examine the situation in a practical and realistic manner. In respect of tennis South Africa has won for itself a reputation in the world, a reputation of which one can be proud. The presentation of tennis here in our country and the trouble being taken by the tennis people are admired, but it is assuming more and more of a definite international flavour. I am told that the Ellis Park stadium can seat approximately 8 000 people at a time. It is therefore well-equipped as far as seating accommodation is concerned. I have discussed this facet with the leaders of the tennis people. If a tournament known as the International Tennis Tournament were arranged in South Africa. I would have no objection to its being held at Ellis Park and to every seeded player, irrespective of his race or his colour—for they are seeded according to a certain system—participating in that tournament. I want to make it very clear, in order to obviate any misunderstanding in this regard, that this would mean that if the champion of the Coloured tennis players, who at one stage was David Samaai of Paarl, were seeded for participation in that tournament, it would be possible for him to participate in it. The same applies in respect of other Coloured people from South Africa itself.

I shall now proceed to athletics. We stated our standpoint previously …

How do you understand this?

Would the hon. member kindly show me the courtesy of affording me an opportunity to speak? As I have said, I shall now proceed to athletics. Our participation in the Olympic Games stems from athletics. I stated my standpoint on this matter in the past. Just as is the case in tennis, a change has taken place in the sphere of athletics in the course of time. I take note of it. Just as one can organize an international tournament in South Africa in the sphere of tennis, so one can organize an international athletics tournament in South Africa. Participation in it will be subject to the same conditions as apply in the case of tennis. It is obvious that in the sphere of athletics South Africa is one of the leading countries in the world at the moment. I have great admiration for the way in which South Africa’s athletes are acquitting themselves. I should like to create that international possibility for them to take part in athletics.

I have now dealt with the most important branches of sport, as they have developed, and furnished my views on them. I said that it was impossible to deal here with every specific branch of sport.

What about swimming?

Swimming is an athletic branch of sport, and I have already referred to athletics as an Olympic branch of sport. Therefore, all branches of sport falling under the Olympic Rules are included here.

Soccer, too?

As far as I know, we no longer have any amateur soccer of any significance in South Africa. In that respect, as far as I know, quite different rules apply in respect of the Olympiad. Before the hon. member puts the rest of the question to me, I want to make certain things very clear. I accept the international consequences, but I want to make the standpoint adopted by this side of the House very clear. At club level, at provincial level and at national level the position remains as it has always been. In that regard no change is being introduced at all. I take full responsibility for the fact that as far as rugby and cricket are concerned, no South African non-Whites have been included in these teams. In this regard I just want to say that I am very sorry indeed that that decision was ever taken in respect of cricket. I want to accept that it was taken with the best intentions in the world. However, I feel that it has given rise to disadvantages which should have been foreseen. Accordingly, I differ very clearly with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if that is what he decided, which is still not clear to me. With the exception of athletics, owing to the specific branch of sport with which we are dealing, namely the Olympic Games, which is an inter-state affair, I differ with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition where he says that he is in favour of mixed teams representing South Africa. I differ very strongly with him in this regard.

Do you believe that the South African athletics team can be mixed?

Yes, as far back as 1964 we adopted that attitude, because the rules of the Olympiad require that it should be one team and because it was on that basis that we participated in the Olympiad from the beginning. That is why we said it could be done that way and …

Was the statement made by the South African Tennis Union that permission had been granted for a tennis team to represent South Africa in the Davis Cup to be selected on merit?

In the first place, I have no knowledge of this statement, and, in the second place, nobody discussed it with me.

In that case, what would your policy be in this regard?

If the hon. member wants to discuss it, I am prepared to reply to him on that point.

Don’t you want to do it now?

The hon. member should put a proper question to me in this regard, and then I shall reply to it in a proper manner. I am saying, therefore, that I differ with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on that matter. Furthermore, I want to say a few words about touring teams visiting our country, because I consider it necessary for me to do so. I stated the position very clearly in 1967, and I want to do so again. When any sporting body in South Africa has extended an invitation—for invitations are extended by sporting bodies, and the Government has never interfered with such invitations —to a country with which we have traditional sports relations, the selection committee of that country selects its team. If that team is selected on merit, we, as far as this side of the House is concerned, do not ask to see the birth certificates of the people selected by the relevant selection committee of that country. [Interjections.] We have never done so, and the hon. member opposite who is being so cynical now, should note that what we have in fact done, is what has now been echoed by his Leader in these words: “The United Party will not tolerate political interference in sport which may harm our international relations or cause international unrest.”

What about the Maoris?

Oh please, Sir, surely I have already explained it and have stated very clearly what the circumstances are? In respect of New Zealand, I stated the position very clearly to those people. They came here. If the hon. member is trying to make political capital out of that, I want to tell him that he will gain absolutely nothing by doing so. What is more, what I am doing here in all seriousness, is to make it possible for South Africa and its young people to participate in sport. I am not trying to steal a march on the Opposition. I am not playing them off against this one or that one. What I am doing is to state, as a responsible person, my standpoint on sport, and they are free to state theirs; that is no concern of mine. But I do not know what the hon. member is going to achieve if he wants to cloud the issue immediately and make political propaganda out of it.

I hope and trust that the guide-lines I have indicated will benefit sport in general as well as those taking part in sport in South Africa. I want to make it very clear that this side of the House firmly takes the stand that in South Africa no mixed sport shall be practised at club, provincial or national level. I have given these guidelines within that framework, and I trust this step will bear fruit.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not try to enter into a discussion on sport with the hon. the Prime Minister. I think it is a matter for him and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. But I have risen with the permission of the hon. the Leader to draw the attention of the House to the tactics followed by the hon. the Prime Minister. Up to now the Prime Minister has taken up more than half of the time allotted for discussion on this Vote. We have no objection to that. It is his right and his privilege. But the Prime Minister has been following very transparent tactics throughout, i.e. those of avoiding the real points for discussion raised by the Opposition, of running away and fleeing from the matters of real importance to South Africa, matters on which the future of South Africa depends. He refuses to discuss those matters. In this debate he has deliberately been seeking points and discussing topics on which he knows the Opposition cannot, except in the case of sport, enter into a real debate. He started with an announcement on State security and the report of the Potgieter Commission. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, that is quite correct.

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member a chance to make his speech.

The report of Mr. Justice Potgieter was not available to the Opposition, although the Prime Minister had had it in his possession for months. In those circumstances we were expected to discuss this matter fully. That is the first point.

The second one is that yesterday the Prime Minister once again tried to steer the debate along an unrealistic course, i.e. by furnishing us with a lengthy account of his negotiations and correspondence with the President of Zambia, knowing very well that we as a responsible Opposition would not attack him on it and would only do what my Leader did at the time, namely to wish him better success for the future. We on this side of the House were desirous of discussing a matter which is of paramount importance to South Africa. But the hon. the Prime Minister refuses to discuss it and has been trying to divert our attention from the realities in South Africa by coming forward with a statement on sport, something which he could have made at any time after that important matter had been dealt with. We have to ask him pointedly, “Why?” Consider the matters which the Government refuses to discuss. [Interjections.]

Your Leader does not know, that is why you are speaking now.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that hon. members are making it difficult for you to maintain order, but we would not have had this reaction if I had been speaking to innocent people.

The matter which we want to discuss with the Prime Minister, is a matter on which the future of South Africa depends. It is concerned with race relations in South Africa, especially relations with the Bantu peoples in South Africa. We are trying to discuss with the Prime Minister the philosophy, the standpoint behind the policy. But the Prime Minister is either not able to do that, or, if he is, he knows that he cannot persevere with it. That is the first one. The second one is that we want to discuss the inevitable role which the Bantu are playing in the economy of South Africa, something without which South Africa cannot survive on its present basis. But the Prime Minister, who in one of his speeches as Prime Minister admitted in this House that he knew nothing about the economy has been trying to avoid a discussion of this matter. We have been trying to discuss with the hon. the Prime Minister the impossibility of such a policy, the impossibility of defending abroad the policy as it is being implemented today. [Interjections.] We have warned him and asked him to give us guidance on how we are to defend this policy, South Africa … [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to hon. members to stop interjecting so continuously. I can hardly hear the hon. member for Yeoville.

It is matters such as these that we want to discuss with the hon. the Prime Minister. For instance, we have asked him to help us by giving us guidance on how we can defend abroad the actions of the Government in respect of the urban and especially the urbanized Native. My hon. young friend, the hon. member for Waterkloof, had a great deal to say today about morality. But our experience and the experience of other responsible people, such as the members of the S.A. Foundation, people who are devoting their lives to creating the best possible image of South Africa abroad, and who had to report at their annual meeting … Mr. Chairman, in the past the hon. the Prime Minister rapped me over the knuckles about courtesy …

I am listening; you may go on.

I have said that the hon. member for Waterkloof had a great deal to say about morality. But the morality of the Government’s colour policy collapses when it comes to the treatment of the urban Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians. It is matters such as these that we want to discuss. However, the hon. the Prime Minister refuses to do so. Instead of doing that he raises others matters, merely to divert attention from the indefensibility of the Government’s standpoint in this regard. The S.A. Foundation, which devotes itself to defending the South Arfican standpoint, said—and that was not easy, for the chairman said that he wanted to have nothing to do with politics—that there were certain matters in regard to which he had to warn the people, matters which are indefensible. It is these indefensible matters which we want to discuss. With what person can we discuss them on that level other than with the Prime Minister himself? But the Prime Minister does not want to; he cannot; he dare not. Sir, just consider the position of the urbanized Native. We had to learn from front-benchers on the Government side, from the Government’s propaganda, that the policy of separate development was going to eliminate all discrimination in South Africa; that is the beautiful future for South Africa. [Interjections.] This is what I heard, and the Prime Minister knows that this is being claimed. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated this standpoint at UNO; will he deny it? His statement was that the policy of separate development was going to lead to the elimination of discrimination in South Africa. [Interjections.] He says it is quite correct. Let him please say this to his back-benchers. Sir, where is the prospect that discrimination is going to be eliminated for the Coloureds, for the Indians and for the urbanized Natives, for whom there is no livelihood in the Bantu homelands and for whom there will be no livelihood, Sir, as long as you and I and our children live in this country. These are the matters which the Prime Minister should discuss with us if he, as he has said, wants to account to the people through Parliament for his administration and his policy. But he cannot do it. We are now asking him again. I know that it is a decision of my Leader to discuss sport with the Prime Minister now, but we shall come back to this matter; I am giving him fair notice. We shall come back to this matter and we shall give him another chance, for it is essential for the people of South Africa to realize that in these matters of real importance to our future, the Government has no real answer which it can defend before God or man.

Sir, have you ever in your life seen a greater spectacle than the hysterical outburst which we have just had from the hon. member for Yeoville?

What is the answer?

The hon. member for Yeoville entered this debate because the Opposition realized and saw yesterday what happens here when leader is pitted against leader. The hon. the Prime Minister, the leader of the National Party, got up here yesterday and rose far above any petty politics to emerge as a great statesman. [Interjections.] Sir, we know the members of the Opposition. If you hear that kind of laughter from that side, Sir, you know we are delivering telling blows. Sir, yesterday we listened to the debate here. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition got up and, as usual, touched on a whole conglomeration of subjects. He touched on a whole lot of minor subjects and the hon. the Prime Minister then said we would deal with these matters step by step under his Vote. Sir, let me just refresh the memory of the Committee. The Prime Minister furthermore said that he was going to talk about State security and he then did so as a statesman, as a leader.

Oh!

Sir, I know that hon. member, the member for Zululand, as a very reasonable member, and I am certain that in his heart he agrees with me that the Prime Minister dealt with the question of State security in a very dignified way.

What did he say?

He said, in the second place, that he was going to speak about the purchase of land for the Bantu homelands, and he did so. He started with the legislation of 1936, and he dealt with the matter very explicitly and in great detail, and then proceeded to an international matter, and dealt with the matter of Kaunda of Zambia at great length. I think hon. members of the Opposition ought to be very grateful to the Prime Minister for the systematic way in Which he dealt with these matters of state one by one. I now want to level the accusation at the Leader of the Opposition, at the hon. member for Yeoville and at the entire Opposition, that they did not have the courage to return to and debate these matters on the same elevated level as the Prime Minister did. Yesterday and today they ran away from these matters. They did not have the courage to discuss these matters which are on the minds of everyone. The Leader of the Opposition did not have the courage to discuss sport matters on this occasion. He issued a Press statement and he spoke on an occasion at a sports club. After that there was a whole number of explanations and in every newspaper we had to read another explanation of how faint the telephone lines were and how incomprehensible this or that was.

But he was not prepared to debate this matter thoroughly on this level with the hon. the Prime Minister. Do you know, Sir, what happened this afternoon? Immediately after the hon. the Prime Minister had spoken, the Leader of the Opposition did not see his way clear to making a farce of himself and his party a second time. Consequently he did not get up, but got the hon. member for Yeoville to rise to his feet and to make a hysterical outburst against the Prime Minister and to level accusations at the Prime Minister, accusations which he definitely did not deserve.

Sir, I know I am speaking on behalf of South Africa when I tell the hon. the Prime Minister today that he performed his task here like a worthy statesman. We are grateful for that. Through his actions here he has done South Africa and the whole population a service. We have listened to this debate; we have looked at what happened here. We expected the Leader of the Opposition to come forward here with those matters about which they and their associates usually gossip at elections, but they did not display that courage here. We know of no other country in the world with bigger and more complicated population problems than there are in South Africa. Therefore we expect, on occasions such as this, when the Vote of the Prime Minister is discussed, to get from the side of the Opposition a proper discussion on a high level of these problems affecting our country and our people, but we do not get it. The hon. member for Yeoville jumped up here and levelled accusations to the effect that the Prime Minister was not prepared to discuss colour problems. Sir, over all the years since 1948 and at election after election, the Opposition has lost because of this specific colour problem. Does he think we do not want to discuss it? We would welcome nothing more than just discussing this problem.

But there are other matters which have to be discussed now, and the hon. the Prime Minister has returned to them time and again since yesterday. I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville to look at the result in Witbank and at the result in North Rand. On all sides the people are rejecting the United Party because of its colour policy. [Laughter.] Yes, Sir, they may laugh about it, but the hon. member for Yeoville is very sore at heart about the result because he and his Press had already created the hope and the expectation that they might possibly take Witbank. No, if there is one subject on which the National Party and the Government are not afraid to conduct a debate, it is their colour policy, because there is only one policy and there is only one programme of principles in terms of which South Africa with its complicated population problems can be governed. This is the National Party’s programme of principles based on the policy of separate development. And the Leader of the Opposition and the people of South Africa know this.

I rose in order to say that it was a tragic spectacle that took place here this afternoon. It was an unworthy accusation on the part of the hon. member for Yeoville when he said the hon. the Prime Minister was not prepared to discuss the matters they had raised. On the contrary, the hon. the Prime Minister time and again returned to some of the points raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Whenever we discuss these matters, which are of importance, the question is asked: “What about the colour policy?” I want to reassure hon. members and put their minds at rest. They need not be concerned about that. The Coloured policy of the National Party will still be discussed in this debate. Not because it is not well known. It is very well known. The late Dr. Verwoerd explained it and our present Prime Minister has very ably explained the direction and the policy. It will be discussed in this debate if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition have the courage to debate with the hon. the Prime Minister on that level.

Mr. Chairman, I am indeed pleased at the reaction to the remarks of the hon. member for Yeoville. For some time it has been evident that the hon. the Prime Minister during his Vote attempts to dictate the subjects which are to be discussed and the time at which they are to be discussed. It was never more evident than last year during this very same debate when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House talked for two hours on one subject while the Opposition was talking on another. We are getting a little tired of this sort of thing. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that I am very happy to discuss sport with him. I will …

You raised the issue.

Of course I raised the issue. The hon. the Prime Minister knows very well that there was another issue that is not yet exhausted which I shall exhaust with the hon. the Prime Minister in due course.

We have had an outburst from one of the whips on the other side. He could not resist talking about Witbank. He sounded to me a bit like a chairman at the annual general meeting of a company who says to his shareholders: “I am happy to tell you that we have again shown a loss. I am confident that we shall continue in this downward direction in the years that lie ahead.”

The hon. the Prime Minister has made a statement on sport which to my mind shows a remarkable lack of faith in the sporting bodies of South Africa. It is a statement which is based on an ideology which has only recently been accepted by the Nationalist Party, namely the idea that we are a multi-national state and not a multi-racial state. May I say that I think we are a plural society. And you can make out of that what you like. It seems to me that what the hon. gentleman has done is that he has sought an ideology to use as a fig leaf for a statement which is a departure from his previous policy. I am not sorry that he is departing from it. I am indeed very pleased. I think that what has happened is that there are signs of movement on the other side. But what has happened? We are told that because we are a multi-national society we will exercise our sports in separate groups, except at certain stadiums, namely international stadiums, where some sports will be enjoyed together. Does the hon. the Prime Minister really think that that is going to have any effect in the outside world? It may affect his own people and their belief in him. But there is no logic in it whatsoever.

We find that in cricket and rugby with which the hon. the Prime Minister dealt specifically there will be no mixed sport unless an outside team comes to South Africa with non-White players in it. But there will be no playing of the game between White and non-White in South Africa in one team, or mixed trials for the purposes of selecting a team. In athletics, however, we shall have at an international stadium meetings, which include swimming, where there will be mixed competition between Whites and non-Whites who are South Africans. That will be allowed in tennis as well. The hon. gentleman was not clear what the position would be if an international athletic team were to visit South Africa. Would it then run against the Whites, the Bantu and the Coloureds, or would it at the international stadium …

If they came here as a touring team, yes.

If they come here as a touring team, they will run against the Whites, the Coloureds and the Black separately …

On separate occasions, yes.

They will not run in the same stadium at the same time?

No.

I am not trying to play politics, Sir.

Yes, I have told you what the position will he.

In other words, if we hold the South African championships, and we give it an international colour hy inviting individual athletes from overseas …

Yes, from all over the world.

… then Whites and non-Whites who are South Africans can participate and run against those athletes?

Yes.

But if we invite them as a team then they cannot run against a mixed South African team?

No. [Interjections.]

When it comes to tennis we can have a mixed international tournament in which Whites and non-Whites who are South Africans, will play, and overseas people of all races can participate if selected and invited?

Yes.

But if we play international tennis in South Africa, a South African team will consist only of Whites? It will not be a mixed team?

They are organized as such, yes.

Must I assume then that the rule is different at international level from when we play in the Davis Cup competition? I have a report here which I should like to put to the Prime Minister. I have no idea as to its accuracy. Perhaps the hon. gentleman could help me. The report states, inter alia:

Mr. Chalmers and Mr. Acting Justice Franklin, who asked many questions about the likely political repercussions in South Africa … finally disclosed that when they gave an undertaking at the international federation’s annual meeting in Prague last year, that non-Whites would be included in South African Davis Cup teams, if they could play well enough, they had been authorized by the Government to do so.

If those are the rules of the Davis Cup competition, the answer is yes.

I can accept then, Sir, that if the Davis Cup competition is played in South Africa …

Then the same rules would apply as if the Olympic Games were to take place in South Africa.

I see. Then a mixed tennis team could represent South Africa in the Davis Cup?

I have already told you.

Yes, thank you. Sir, it seems to me that we are now in a situation in which the hon. the Prime Minister has made certain piecemeal relaxations for different sports. I am glad that he has treated different sports in different ways, because I believe they have different problems.

The hon. gentleman has asked me what the policy of this side of the House is. The answer is that in principle we are prepared, if asked by the relevant sporting bodies, to accept mixed trials in South Africa and to select mixed teams to represent South Africa, either in South Africa or outside South Africa. I stress the words “at the request of the relevant sporting body”. I do not believe that any South African sporting body …

Have you decided about that?

Yes. In principle we accept that. I have done so in the full faith and understanding that I do not believe any South African sporting body, representative of sport in South Africa, would make a request of that kind without the full support of the players right down the tree. I want to emphasize that, as far as we are concerned, it concerns national trials and national games. Apart from that, we believe, the various groups would want to continue to play their games as they have done in the past with members of their own groups. The difference between us is quite clear. The hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to accept this principle in respect of certain sports, but not in respect of others. I accept that. I believe that the controlling bodies in South Africa will come to different decisions. I believe that the rugby people will say that they do not want any mixed rugby in South Africa.

And if they do not?

That is their funeral. Mr. Chairman, this hon. Minister must wake up. If the South African Rugby Board takes a decision and knows what the consequences are, it is their funeral. If they are not invited overseas or if teams do not accept invitations from them to visit South Africa, it is their problem. Equally, if they take a decision that they want mixed sport in South Africa and the players of rugby in South Africa do not want it and the spectators do not want it, then their sport will suffer as well. That is also their funeral. It goes for a number of other sports as well.

But the hon. the Minister has taken me off my point. The point I want to make is that it seems to me there is very little difference in real principles between the hon. the Prime Minister and myself. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. I accuse the United Party of double talking. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not going to allow these continual interjections. When I call for order, it applies to all hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, I can quote from Hansard where the hon. member for Yeoville said that if the M.C.C. wanted to choose D’Oliveira, we must accept the team. But he said further that if they told us that we should include non-Whites in our team, we would resent it. Did the hon. member say that, or not?

Who are they to dictate to us?

Now the hon. member says: Who are they to dictate to us? I can remember that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that these sporting bodies must rely on the conventions of South Africa. I have the actual passage here with me in which he said that.

Read it.

Yes, I will. I can also quote Senator after Senator of the United Party who said that they will not allow mixed sport in South Africa. Still hon. members on that side of the House say that they do not indulge in double talk. Let me read the actual wording of what the hon. member for Yeoville said. He said:

If we want to invite the M.C.C., let us respect the right of the M.C.C. to choose their team. We ask them to respect our right to choose our team. If they were to insist that we should include non-Whites in our teams we would resent it.

The hon. member will remember the cancellation of the tour by South Africa of Britain. Does the hon. member remember what the M.C.C.’s final statement was? I gave them full credit that they wanted the tour to continue, but they ended by saying that that tour would be the last tour between South Africa and Britain, either way, unless we bring in multi-racial cricket in South Africa.

The last test matches.

No. they said “multiracial cricket”. I have the actual statement with me.

Multi-racial cricket.

The hon. member for Houghton says, rightly, that they said multi-racial cricket. Then they also said that teams must be selected on a multiracial basis.

Yes, but they said “the last test matches”.

No, it was stated that it must be multi-racial cricket. The hon. members on that side try to close their eyes to these things. I have had my arguments with the hon. member for Pinelands who does understand sporting matters. I remember that he once said that I was a dictator of sport. I put him right on that occasion. It was over the summit meeting. He said I was a dictator because I refused to allow the sport administrators to get together. I told him that I did not do anything of the kind and that they could get together as much as they liked. But they wanted me to call the summit meeting and they also wanted the Prime Minister there. I said that I was not prepared to call a summit meeting, but they could have as many meetings as they liked. The hon. member then said that I was the dictator of sport. Then I said he was trying to make a political issue of sport in South Africa and he should beware of doing that. I want to prove this to the hon. members. There is an hon. member in this House, and I think he is the Deputy Shadow Minister of Sport on that side of the House, who blatantly went out of his way to exploit sport politically, I am going to quote him just now. The hon. members on that ride of the House will try to exploit sport to the utmost just in order to get a few votes, or which they believe they will get. The hon. member said:

If that is not blatant political exploitation of sport, I would like to know what is. I wanted to say to the hon. member for Pinelands, who is their shadow Minister, ” hat I could not understand of him is that he could go and say to the papers that he supports the walk-off of the cricket players. I can read the statements which appeared in the papers. One of them r “Progs and United Party back cricket walk-off”.

Are you certain of that?

The hon. member can ask any newspaper. They will tell him that the United Party supported the walk-off. I want to ask the United Party whether they have ever considered the basis on which these cricketers walked off the field. First of all I would like to say to them that South Africa has suffered tremendously because of these demonstrations on sporting fields. The demonstrators in England upset our rugby players and the demonstrators in Australia upset our two girl tennis players. In the same way the demonstrators tried to upset our surfing team which visited Australia recently. The one man who supported the cricketers and the United Party’s attitude was Peter Hain, because he is the organizer of demonstrations against us on sports fields overseas. That is why I say that I cannot understand the hon. member for Pinelands. Look what the cricketers said:

The South African Cricket Association never used the words “if good enough”. They never had a trial and they never suggested a trial. They said these people should be picked by the Board of Control.

Would you have allowed trials?

That is not the point. I am telling the hon. members what they asked. That hon. member must not try to put me off. He should try to stick to what I am trying to tell him. The Cricket Association never used the words “if good enough”. I quote:

Does that sound like the international cricket field or merit only being the criterion on the cricket field? What does that mean? It means mixed sport on the cricket field. That is why I am surprised at the hon. member for Pinelands and the United Party supporting this sort of attitude taken by the cricketers.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Can the hon. the Minister quote any member of the United Party or the United Party officially as having supported the cricketers’ walk-off?

Yes. I am amazed at the hon. member’s question, because it shows that hon. members on that side of the House are very sensitive. Right throughout the country it was said that sport was going to be the big issue in this House, but the United Party has avoided it like the plague. The hon. member for Yeoville showed this when he objected to the hon. the Prime Minister raising the question of sport during his speech, after the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had raised it in his 30-minute speech. I will read to hon. members opposite what the hon. member for Pinelands said. He was reported as follows—

So what?

Then there is another article entitled “Progs, and U..P back cricket walk-off”. Where did the newspapers get that? Hon. members could not wait to get on the bandwagon to see if they could get a few more votes out of the “walk-off”. This is also my accusation against them. They double-talk sport from left to right and from top to bottom. They will not face up to the issues and they try to run away from them as hard as they can. That is why I say they show complete irresponsibility towards the problems of sport in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to follow the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation in the sort of statements that he made. I would suggest that if he has nothing better to do, he should read back some of his own Hansard in which he said that he would never see mixed sport allowed in South Africa.

That is a different thing altogether. Do you want mixed Springboks? [Interjections.]

Order!

I said that I believed that there was not a great difference in principle between the hon. the Prime Minister and myself, but I did not have an opportunity to finish entirely what I had to say. The hon. gentleman asked me why in one place we said we were prepared and in another place we said we were prepared to consider. The hon. gentleman will know very well that when a sporting arrangement is made in which there are to be Whites and non-Whites from South Africa, there are various local laws, conventions and customs which it may or may not be desirable to relax. As far as we are concerned, we are not prepared to make a blanket relaxation without knowing what the situation is. I was interested in the hon. the Prime Minister saying that in South Africa the convention had developed naturally, without any laws, that the different groups enjoyed their sport separately. That is correct, Sir. If that has developed naturally, the probability is that it will continue naturally without any laws. That is why one is anxious to leave the matter to the sporting bodies who are controlling sport in South Africa at the present time. The hon. the Prime Minister today in his statement did not again say that he suggested that the non-White organizations should make their own contacts overseas.

Yes, I will deal with that.

Then I will leave that matter until the hon. gentleman has dealt with it. This takes me to the next point. Is the hon. gentleman opposed, even in respect of those bodies in which he is prepared to allow mixed sport at an international level, to the representation of non-Whites on the White controlling bodies? He knows that there has been an announcement that the present Olympic organization has given representation to certain non-White athletic bodies on its council.

It is in terms of the statement made in 1962, and again in 1963.

I am happy. I wish to know whether it is confined to that organization or whether it will be considered in respect of other sport-controlling bodies in which there is a possibility of mixed sport at international level, as envisaged by the hon. gentleman.

Then I did want to make one suggestion to the hon. the Prime Minister. He agreed with me, as he has done before when we discussed this matter in this House in 1967, that we would like to have all race groups watch all organized sport, provided adequate facilities are available for Whites and non-Whites. I would appeal to the hon. gentleman not to lay it down as a hard and fast rule—I do not say he has done it—that where non-White South African teams play White touring teams. White spectators should not be given facilities to attend those games.

White spectators in the Coloured and Bantu areas?

That is right, as we have Coloured spectators at Newlands, in a White area.

The reply is no. No permits will be given to spectators.

I understand that we are still at one that non-White spectators, where there are facilities available, will be permitted to attend matches between White or mixed teams in White sporting areas, such as at Newlands and Ellis Park.

As far as I am concerned, the position will remain as it is, depending on future developments, naturally.

There are just one or two other matters that I would like to raise on this issue. The one concerns mixed trials. I want to make it perfectly clear that we reserve to ourselves the right to decide what are genuine trials and what are necessary for such trials for the selection of a national team. A mixed trial does not necessarily mean that a non-White team plays a White team. I would envisage a mixed cricket trial, perhaps, between 22 players of whom perhaps at the most at the moment two or three might be non-Whites. Nevertheless, it would give an opportunity of judging the standard of those players and of the White players participating in the trials.

The other issue I wanted to raise is the question of non-Whites being permitted to attend international events in South Africa where both White and non-White athletes and White and non-White tennis players from overseas were participating in a tournament.

Seating accommodation will be the same as it is now.

I am not aware what the seating accommodation is at Ellis Park.

I thought you knew what it is.

I do not, because I have never been there. I would be glad to know from the hon. the Prime Minister. It seems to me it would be a pity if the non-Whites were to be excluded for lack of seating accommodation.

There is seating accommodation for them there and it will remain.

The hon. gentleman has suggested that the match against the Coloured people should be at Athlone. The hon. gentleman knows that Coloureds are allowed admission, for instance, to the Agricultural Society grounds at Goodwood. If the match were held there both White and non-White would be permitted to attend without any permits. It might be of tremendous advantage to the public of South Africa if they could see an engagement of that kind. It might make a big contribution towards better understanding between the races in South Africa.

Sir, that is all I wish to raise on this issue. Other speakers on this side will raise the matter again in due course.

It has become obvious to me that the major difference in approach to sport between the Government and the Opposition is to be found in the fact that the Government does not regard sport, as the Prime Minister rightly said this afternoon, as being of paramount importance. The interests of South Africa, both domestically and abroad, must not be made secondary to sport. The Opposition differs with us. When demands are made abroad, we are to comply with them, according to the Opposition. The other basic difference is that they regard South Africa as being a multi-racial country. We regard South Africa as being a country with several peoples, which can also, by making use of sport, promote their own national consciousness and realize it in the best way.

Sir, in general the significance of sport is important to me. I have here a document written by Dr. Hannes Botha, the well-known Springbok athlete, “Sport in Perspective”, in which he wrote, inter alia, the following (translation)—

But then he sounds this warning—

With reference to this quotation I want to say that in our approach to sport we should always allow ourselves to be guided by these views and not by considerations put forward abroad or elsewhere with objectives which are inconsistent with them. In this regard I should like to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his followers today that in making promises about how international teams will be composed under them, they must bear in mind that those people who are making demands on sport in South Africa, are not sportsmen such as those referred to in this document. They are not only blackmailers; I want to call people such as Peter Hain and Co. terrorists. It is that class of people that are making demands, and when such demands are made, it is not the National Party or the Government that finds itself in the crush-pen, but the whole of South Africa, the Opposition along with us. If the Opposition are of the opinion that they can win the favour of those people through a few gestures or a few half-baked plans, and, as was said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in his policy statement, retain South Africa’s traditional participation in international sport, they are making a grave mistake.

The only way in which one can handle this situation, is to think and act in regard to these matters in terms of principles. That is where the major short-coming on the Opposition side is to be found, i.e. that they did not think in terms of principles and did not appreciate what the implications of that statement issued by them would be for South Africa. On the other hand I want to say that the statement which the hon. the Prime Minister made here this afternoon, and which also affords our own non-White peoples the opportunity of competing whilst following their own course and reaching the highest rung without any restrictions, is the only way in which we, with our situation in South Africa, can approach sport. Sir, this afternoon I want to put a few questions to members of the Opposition with reference to what happened in sport quite recently and does not tally with this approach to sport which I quoted here this afternoon. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not here at the moment; I shall, therefore, put this question to the hon. member for Pinelands. He is a person who played representative cricket and who is still moving in cricket circles. Did the hon. member have talks with cricket people prior to that decision and prior to that walk-off at Newlands?

What are you trying to insinuate?

No, I am not trying to insinuate anything. I am asking the hon. member a very frank question. Let the hon. member for Newton Park please stay out of this; I am speaking to the hon. member for Pinelands.

We are not discussing the Land Bank or wool now.

Would the hon. member for Pinelands be so kind as to tell me whether he had had talks with cricket people, in whose circles he moves? The hon. member does not want to do me the favour of replying to this. I want to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg North whether he had any talks with people in cricket circles.

Zip!

Just go on making your speech; I shall speak later on.

Did the hon. member have any talks with cricket people? Sir, I cannot elicit any answers from these members, but I have reason to presume what I do presume, for there is a way of doing things, and in this delicate sport situation in which South Africa finds itself, especially in view of the problems in Australia, any intelligent person who has sport at heart, would have said what Mr. Arthur Coy had told certain cricket players about a month ago, i.e. “Don’t express your views in public, even if you do have your own views, for the Prime Minister is a person who goes out of his way and is at pains to handle this delicate situation; don’t make things any more difficult for the authorities.” But what has happened now? A statement has been issued here, a statement in which all the talks with the Government are being blazed abroad. These people may have been advised by somebody that this statement would cause fewer demonstrations to be staged against them abroad; perhaps they thought so, but the next moment a walk-off took place, something which is unprecedented in our history of sport in South Africa, and the hon. member for Johannesburg North was the first person to say that he was giving his full support to that demonstration.

Where do you get that from?

If the hon. member would read the Argus of 3rd April, he would see that his name was prominently mentioned in that report as one of those who supported it. Must I read it to the hon. member? I quote—

Sir, there is no need for me to read on. A role was played here which, in particular, does not behave a politician. I want to concede that those cricket players were misled or misguided, but did the people who advised them or expressed their support to such a demonstration, stop to think what harm they were doing to cricket in South Africa and to cricket in the international world, and what harm they were doing to relations between English and Afrikaans-speaking people in this country? I have here a letter in which the following is said (translation)—

The day before yesterday there appeared in the Argus a letter written by a teacher who had studied at an English university and taught at English schools, and who had, at the time of writing, been teaching at an Afrikaans school for a number of years. He said that he had made a point of holding up cricket to young Afrikaans-speaking pupils as the “gentleman’s game”, but that after what had happened at Newlands, where players in the “gentleman’s game” had acted in this manner, he no longer saw his way clear to doing that. [Time expired.]

I just want to point out that as from now I shall enforce order strictly. Hon. members are disregarding the Chair and I shall take positive action now.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has reacted to the sports proposals so far of the hon. the Prime Minister and he has done so, I suggest, in a most statesmanlike way, seeking to find out what their policy is and to get clarity. I myself would very much like to keep sporting matters like this as far as possible on a very high level, but what have we had from the opposite side? I want to place it on record right now so that there shall be no misunderstanding. When we came forward with our sport policy the other day. what did we find? The Government seized the first opportunity to launch a most vitriolic and unjustified attack upon our policy and to point out all sorts of complications, most of which do not exist, and every single one of which now exists under their policy, and worse. Not only did we have that the other day. when perhaps there might have been a little excuse for it, (although frankly I do not think in these matters there is any excuse for it, even on the eve of the election at Wit-bank); but we now have the leading speaker, apart from the hon. the Minister of Sport, on the Government side coming with the same sort of political attacks and trying to make political capital. I think it is time that the record is put straight before we get back to South Africa’s interest in this matter and various other things.

I want, first of all, just to answer the clear insinuation of the hon. member for Stellenbosch, which was that I had been in contact with the cricket players and clearly had counselled that they should walk off the field. Let me say that I regard that with the utmost contempt and I say quite categorically, so that there shall be no misunderstanding, that it was a complete surprise to me. The first thing I heard about it was some time during the afternoon on Saturday, because I was not there in the morning. But it staggers me, where we are speaking on an issue of this kind, that this should be the first reaction of a frontbencher on the opposite side. It is an absolute disgrace.

But let us look at the further things with which they have come in this debate. We have had from the hon. member for Pretoria Central yesterday, and now again from the hon. member for Stellenbosch, this attack that this side has based its sports policy on the demands of outside people. I say that is an absolutely scandalous statement. And let me say that it comes most shockingly from this Government, because if ever there was a Government which the written word proves has in fact set its policy to the demands of outside people, it is this Government. I wish to quote what the hon. the Prime Minister himself said in his sports policy statement of April, 1967, after he had been prodded into making it. First of all, he was quoting from what Mr. Braun stated was the policy in regard to athletics. He quoted with approval Mr. Braun’s words, from which it was clear that our Olympic team would be selected by White and non-White sports administrators sitting together. Then the hon. the Prime Minister went on to say this—

I shall read that again:

What is your point?

My point is that the hon. the Prime Minister is told by overseas people that their conditions for our participation in the Olympic Games are that there shall be a mixed team of South Africans and that they shall perform together under the South African flag, and the Prime Minister said: Those are their conditions overseas and I will comply with them. And he said so again today.

That is the rule of the Olympic Games.

Yes, it is the rule, but it only shows that hon. members opposite will modify their principles if somebody tells them that they have to. But the hon. the Prime Minister has said again today, that if the rules of the Davis Cup require that our team should be chosen on merit, then they shall be chosen on merit. I say again that the point I am making here is that I resent, and I reject with contempt, the accusations made against our side that we have shaped our policy to conform with demands from outside. I say that it ill-becomes any hon. member opposite ever to use that argument again.

I want to say that included in this attack we had made upon us by the hon. member for Pretoria Central, there was the allegation that there would be social mixing and there would be integration. I say one thing which is absolutely quite clear to me already about these proposals, and that is that the biggest activity which is now possible in our sport, particularly at international level, is for a White team to play a Black team, or for a White team to play a Coloured team. That is the biggest possibility, because there are all these 22 nations in it. There are nine ethnic groups here, one Coloured group and one Indian group. Now they as nations can all compete on a level together, and indeed, it will work to that end that they shall do so. I use this argument purely because we had this thrown at us that our policy leads to integration. I say the possibility of play between White and non-White South Africans has been multiplied immensely by this proposition, quite out of line with the normal South African tradition. I merely instance the fact that in terms of the Olympic Games idea, all the Olympic sports can be played on a team basis together and so forth. As I say, I use that for that sole purpose because I believe that this sort of proposal should be approached on its merits, but the opposite side has a way of making a political matter out of it and I hope that by answering in this way we will get a good deal less of it.

In the short time left to me I would like to deal with the hon. the Minister of Sport. The hon. the Minister of Sport and the Government always previously took the view that there should be no play between White and non-White teams in South Africa. I want to say and admittedly this is a political point and not a point on the merits, the more we examine these proposals we will see that hon. members opposite have been turning somersaults to such an extent that if it were not such a serious matter, one could describe it as a “circus” policy rather than a sports policy. To prove my statement on the subject of mixed sport, I want to say this. The hon. the Prime Minister, in his statement of April, 1967, laid it down clearly that there should be no question of mixed sport between White and non-White South Africans. I just happen to have here the reaffirmation of that by the hon. the Minister of Sport on 28th May, 1970, less than a year ago, where he said that the Government also rejects a policy which would allow White teams to compete with non-White teams, whether in South Africa or, as has been suggested, in neighbouring territories, nor will it consider any form of mixed trials. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am rising to my feet to talk to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the first place. In passing, however, I just want to say two things to the hon. member for Pinelands. Firstly, I want to say to him that the hon. member for Stellenbosch did not make any insinuation against him. He merely asked the hon. member a question, to which he could have replied either “No” or “Yes”.

He said he had reason to suspect what he suspected.

He asked the hon. member whether he had been there or not. However, I leave the matter at that.

Secondly, the hon. member put forward the nonsensical argument that I had allegedly said in 1967 that, as far as the Olympic Games were concerned, I had done that under pressure from the outside world. Did the hon. member not listen while I was speaking? I said that we had been a member of the Olympic Games throughout the years. We had participated in those Games in the full knowledge of what their rules were. Their rules provided that, and because their rules provided that, we had to comply with it. Surely there is a world of difference between the two. And if these were the rules and regulations in respect of the Davis Cup as well —and we have been playing in the Davis Cup series since before the rinderpest— and we were to decide that we wanted to remain in that competition, we would remain in it on the basis of those rules and regulations. What is wrong with that? Or does the hon. member want to make his own rules and regulations in that regard?

I now want to turn to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. What I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I say with great respect, because he and I have respect for each other. I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that when he wants to discuss something with me in the future, he must not make use of an errand boy. He must speak to me directly and in person.

I shall now furnish the replies which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me to furnish in regard to these matters. I am grateful for his having reminded me that I had not come to deal with the point of the non-Whites’ own sporting relations. The world is tremendously large and there are more than a hundred different nations. Hon. members will recall that when I discussed this topic in 1967, I said that we had built up certain traditional sporting relations over the years. I should like to retain those sporting relations. Naturally, as far as most of our branches of sport are concerned, we cannot have relations with the whole of the world. We simply do not have the time and the opportunity for that.

Now. we as Whites, as we are organized in our Rugby Board, in our Cricket Board and in respect of the other branches of sport, have over the years built up traditional relations with countries. We can hardly take more onto our shoulders than we already have in this regard. The entire world is wide open to the Coloured people who are also organized on a separate ¡basis, to establish their own relations with such other states as are prepared to establish such relations with them. As far as the Black people are concerned, the whole of Africa and the entire world is open to them to establish their own relations according as those people want to establish relations with them. Let me give the hon. member an example. I shall welcome it if, for example, a Coloured cricket team undertakes an overseas tour to any country that wants to invite them. I shall welcome it if a Black team builds up relations with any country in Africa and then goes to play there, or goes to play in any European country which is willing to receive them. I should like the matter to develop in such a way that they can realize themselves fully in that sphere in the international world. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agrees with me.

On whose behalf will they be playing?

They will choose a name for themselves just as we choose the name “Springboks” for ourselves. Whatever that name will be, they will be playing under that name, just as the Maoris as a group from New Zealand have gone to play against England, Fiji and other parts of the world.

But they are a national team.

Sir, I would be glad if we could dispose of this matter once and for all across the floor of this House. The Springbok rugby team is not representative of the whole of South Africa. It has never been that. It has never claimed to be representative of the whole of South Africa. It is representative of the Whites of South Africa. It has always been that, for the simple reason that it has been organized by the Whites, and that the Coloured people have organized themselves on a separate basis. Surely the hon. member knows that the invitations sent here in the past were not addressed to the rugby players of South Africa. They were addressed to the White South African Rugby Board, which consists of Whites only, and to which the Coloured people and the Bantu have never belonged, because they have their own rugby boards. Is that clear to the hon. member? The South African Rugby Board has never represented the whole of South Africa. The South African Cricket Board has never represented the whole of South Africa. On the contrary, Mr. Howa is the chief of the Coloured people’s own Cricket Board and he adopts a hostile attitude towards the White Cricket Board. He is directly opposed to them. He adopts such a hostile attitude that he refused to accept R50 000 from the White Cricket Board for the promotion of cricket among the Coloured people. In terms of the composition of the Cricket Board non-Whites have never been allowed to belong to it. It is that Cricket Board which has established the overseas relations. It is to that Cricket Board that invitations are addressed. It is that Cricket Board which arranged the tours of the past.

May I ask a question? Can what happened in the case of table tennis, where the non-White body is now recognized by the world table tennis organizations as representing South Africa, not happen here too?

Sir, it can happen now as well. I am glad the hon. member has mentioned the example of table tennis. The White and the non-White table tennis bodies were organized on a separate basis, just as the rugby and the cricket bodies are organized on a separate basis. Then the International Table Tennis Union, which is communist-controlled, said that there were two unions in South Africa and that it recognized the non-White union. But at present there are two rugby unions. There are two cricket unions. That is the present position, and it has always been the position. Does the hon. member understand the argument? It can happen now too.

But the non-Whites do not play rugby and cricket at international level.

The very thing I want to do is to afford them the opportunity of participating at international level. I want to afford them this opportunity because it is their right. I want to afford them this opportunity because the outside world is levelling the reproach at us that our non-Whites in South Africa are being hemmed in and cannot get out. I want to make it possible for them to compete at international level, because it is their right. I do not think there is anyone who would quarrel with me about that.

My hon. friend also put a question in regard to spectators in the Coloured areas. He knows how limited the number of seats is at any of our sports stadiums and how difficult it is to obtain tickets. I want to put it to him that, apart from the problems it would create, problems of which he and I are aware, apart from the principle involved, it would be unfair, when a touring side comes to play rugby against the Coloured people, to take away seats from the Coloured people and give them to Whites who have more money than they do.

But what about a stadium like the Show Grounds at Goodwood?

I know nothing about the Show Grounds at Good-wood. The Rugby Board has not made any representations to me in that connection. But I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that if a match were played between a touring side and our Coloured people, whether at the Good-wood Show Grounds, if it would be possible to stage it there, or at any other place—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will understand that I am not committing myself at all, because I do not know the circumstances—the interest among the Coloured people would be so great that I would positively lay down the rule that, wherever the match was to be played, only Coloured spectators would be admitted, with the exception of the rugby officials. I am not going to inconvenience one single Coloured person by affording a White person the opportunity to attend such matches, because the Whites have plenty of opportunities to see matches.

In regard to cricket I just want to make one matter very clear, with reference to the argument put forward by the hon. the Minister. In our assessment of the cricket situation we must understand very clearly that, when the Cricket Council, which controls cricket, took its decision in regard to South Africa, it decided “that they will not play against our Springboks, unless we play multi-racial cricket in the whole of South Africa”. I have discussed this matter very thoroughly with the cricket people. I know what I am talking about now.

The English Council.

Yes, but cricket is controlled by that Cricket Council. If they say “No”, it means just that.

No, it is only an English body.

No, that is not so. It is the body that controls cricket. After all, I have discussed this matter fully with the cricket people. If the Cricket Council were to decide tomorrow that we were out of cricket, we would be out. Then the Australians would not dare invite us; then the New Zealanders would not dare invite us. That is the position.

I am talking about the Commonwealth Council. I do not think the Commonwealth Council accepts that.

Their decision was that we had to play “multi-racial” cricket. I asked whether that meant “interracial” cricket or “multi-racial” cricket, because the hon. members will appreciate that there is in fact a difference in meaning. The Council made it very clear that they were not even satisfied with “inter-racial” cricket; it had to be “multi-racial” cricket. That “multi-racial” cricket must be played at all levels from top to bottom, in other words, at provincial level as well, and at every possible level. Hon. members can now realize what problems we are faced with in that regard. Now, I am not saying the following in a spirit of reproach towards hon. members on the opposite side of this House, but I am saying it in respect of sportsmen and sports administrators outside, and that is that we have to be extremely careful in this regard not to make any promises or not to hold anything in prospect which we know in our heart of hearts we cannot do in practice. If we do that, we shall be turning one devil into two. We shall be creating agitators, we shall be creating dissatisfaction, and we shall be making a rod for our own backs. Therefore I am careful not to do that in this regard. I do not hold out the prospect of anything which cannot be done. I do not hold out the prospect of anything which is not in accordance with the principle that mixed sport shall not be practised here in South Africa, but that sport shall be practised on a separate basis by the various national groups.

May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question? I cannot understand the hon. the Prime Minister’s explanation about the Olympic team. Will he allow mixed trials for the Olympic team, for the mixed South African team that will represent our country?

That is a problem that will be presented by the Olympic Games, but it is a problem that one can solve very easily. It will not be necessary to hold mixed trials, because, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, there are many branches of sport in respect of which it is not necessary to hold trials. Apart from that, the whole question of trials falls away because one can arrange an international athletic meeting at which it will become very clear who are the best athletes and who are not.

What about boxing and wrestling?

I have been speaking of Olympic branches of sport now, surely, and what applies in respect of one Olympic branch of sport applies to all of them. Surely you cannot make fish of the one and flesh of the other.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister. What is the position in respect of the team sports such as rowing. basket-ball, hockey and even bowls, which are allowed at the Olympic Games?

No representations in regard to those branches of sport have been made to me as yet. If representations are made to me and I am asked to state my attitude in that regard, my attitude will be precisely the same as that which I have now explained to hon. members in respect of the other Olympic branches of sport. It will be the same, because other Olympic branches of sport—and at the moment I do not know what branches of sport are all included in the Olympic Games—will, if they want to participate, comply with the rules and regulations in respect of those branches of sport. Then I have to add that many branches of sport do not participate in the Olympic Games. I wish to repeat that from the outset we went into the Olympic Games in the full knowledge that both Whites and non-Whites participate in the Games and, in addition, that it is not done on a team basis, but on a national basis. In other words, if rugby were an Olympic sport, our rugby people would not have qualified, because they are not organized on a national basis, as they represent only the organized rugby team of the Whites. I hope the hon. member understands the difference existing in that regard. If one takes part in sport, one must do so according to its rules.

What is the standpoint in respect of golf?

As far as golf is concerned, I may say that I put my standpoint as far back as 1967, when the matter of selecting a team for the World Golf Cup, at that time the Canada Cup, cropped up. The hon. member can read it in that statement.

If the hon. member for Yeoville now accuses me of “departure from policy”, I just want to make it very clear that all I am doing is to apply the policy consistently throughout. All I am doing is to make it possible in the multi-national context, as I see it, without encouraging or practising mixed sport here in South Africa, to afford the non-Whites participation in the international sporting world.

Do I understand from what the hon. the Prime Minister has said that the Burger’s report is incorrect, i.e. that the English Cricket Council took the decision in regard to our tour, and not the International Cricket Conference?

I understood it to be the Cricket Conference that took the decision; however, I cannot give a conclusive reply, because I do not have first-hand knowledge of the matter. But that is as I understand it. It may be so or it may not; but that is how I understand it.

Mr. Chairman, I am always one to welcome changes introduced by the Government, particularly when they break away from traditions which I do not believe in any case should be maintained. I must say that I think that in this particular case the hon. the Prime Minister is going to regret very deeply the changes that he has made. They are so complicated and so completely illogical that I do not see how he is going to work his way out of this morass of rules and regulations which he has laid down in the field of international sport. Let us take the answers he gave last year to a question I put, namely whether the trials for the South African Olympic Team were going to be mixed trials? The answer he gave, as I understood it, was that he was going to convert the trials for the choosing of the Olympic Team into a sort of international event. In other words, in order to adhere to the principles that he has enunciated, that no mixed sport would be allowed in South Africa and yet at the same time enable us to send a mixed team overseas to compete in the Olympic Games, this international event would be held inside South Africa.

The Olympic Committee lays down that mixed trials should take place because the best sportsmen representing a country in a particular sport have to be chosen under like conditions. You cannot have a Black team holding a trial for the Olympics on one track on one day and a White team taking part on another track on another day, because conditions are not the same. This would not meet the Olympic rules. So in order to meet this situation, the hon. the Prime Minister is going to have an international Olympic trials competition to choose the South African team. I have never heard anything like this in my life. I do not know whether he is doing it in order to keep the Right-wing critics of his own party quiet, otherwise there would be mixed sport in South Africa, or whether he is doing it in order to try to placate the demands of the overseas sports administrators. It is not going to work either way. There is nothing consequential about this. It is nonsense and illogical from the word “go”. As for being consequential on politics, the hon. the Prime Minister talks about multi-national teams playing international sport outside South Africa and multi-national teams being allowed to meet international teams inside South Africa, but not another South African team of a different race.

Now, to be consequential is he going to consider all the Africans as one nation for this purpose? This is what I want to know. Is there going to be a Zulu team representing the Zulu nation?—Because we are being told all the time that there are eight different Bantu nations. Is there going to be a Xhosa team, a Shangaan team, and so on?

What about a Bushman team?

Well, I just want to try and get a bit of logic out of this.

I believe that if anybody from overseas were sitting in this debating chamber today, they would think they were in Alice’s Wonderland. That is the only way I can put it.

But you only believe in multi-racial sport.

Well, I do happen to believe in multi-racial sport in principle.

I want to make it quite clear.

We know it.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. the Minister to carry on like that.

I realize you cannot force clubs to take members they do not want. There are many clubs who do not have Jewish members, and so on. But in principle, one is against that sort of discrimination, and in principle I am against discrimination on racial grounds, obviously.

I would be in favour of South Africans of all races playing sport against each other freely, without any of the restrictions hedged in by the hon. Leader of the Opposition in his new declaration, which I want to say also will not satisfy outside demands. I can only understand that these changes have come about from the Government side on the one hand and the Opposition side on the other hand, purely and simply to meet the demands of the outside world, which have left us far behind as regards the whole multi-racial question. I must tell hon. members that none of these solutions is going to help. The matter has gone too far beyond any camouflage tactics which have been adopted by the Government or by the Official Opposition to be able to succeed. The world thinks we are mad in this respect. The sooner we realize it, the better. If we say: “No, we do not care—let them think we are mad,” then let us stick to our old ridiculous rules and regulations here, but do not think that we are going to be able to break out of our dilemma with this absurd tactical manoeuvre that is being tried. It is not going to work at all.

I was in London last year when the whole South African versus M.C.C. cricket controversy was on the go. I was in England the very week that the tour was cancelled. It will surprise hon. members to hear that I am on record, that I was on television and had newspaper interviews, in trying to get the English public to accept that the South African team should be allowed to come, because I am against isolation. My great fear was that one form of isolation, if successful, would lead to other forms of isolation. This is what worries me more than anything else. I can understand clearly that it is an excellent punitive exercise against South Africa to stop South African teams from going abroad. This is the one thing that really hurts South Africans where they feel it. So I could understand that. But my real objection was that I did not want one form of isolation to lead to economic and cultural isolation. There is a considerable danger that this could happen, if it was successful. I was talking absolutely to a blank wall—there was not a hope of that tour going on.

What you want is a multi-racial government, that is all.

I do want a multiracial government; oh yes, I have made that very clear because this is a multiracial country. But I want to tell the hon. the Minister for Sport something. I must say that my sympathy went out to him at Ellis Park the other day at tennis, although I must also admit that my dulcet boo was to be heard if any discerning person listened. But I was sorry for him when he was booed, although I joined in. [Interjections.] Yes, I thought he might have recognized my voice. I was booing very happily, although in my heart of hearts I was sorry for him. I was sorry for him, because he was taking the brunt of what was really Government policy. After all, he does not make the decision. He makes mistakes every now and then but he does not make the decisions.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Does she remember what the head of the anti-apartheid movement said about sport? He said: “You can have multi-racial sport …”

Sir, the hon. the Minister can make his speech when I sit down. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it was not just Peter Hain who stopped the South African cricket tour. He started the demonstrations, but by the time that campaign was over the most respectable organizations in England were dead against the tour. There was the Race Relations Board, which, believe me, is a very conservative body; there was the Community Council which was worried about the educational side, the schools and the uproar that would be created in the multi-racial schools in England; there were people like Sir Edward Boyle, who would have been the Conservative Minister of Education had he stayed in politics. Highly respectable people were against the tour, not only wild Left Wing radicals. They were there too, of course,. but very respectable organizations had joined in because the thing had gone well beyond apartheid in South Africa. It had become a matter of British race relations, of what was going to happen inside Britain; it had become a case of Britain’s relations with the Commonwealth nations. It had become a matter of law and order in England as well because the police said themselves that it would be an impossible thing to maintain law and order at Lords or the Oval for a five-day test match. I want to tell the hon. member, Sir, that I doubt very much indeed, despite the unbelievably complicated and involved concessions which the Prime Minister has now evolved to get us off the hook, whether the international tours, including the cricket and rugby tours to Australia, will go on.

These respectable bodies never approved of demonstrations on the field.

They did not approve of it …

And that is what Peter Hain approved of.

Sir, whether they approved of it or not, those demonstrations were taking place and were going to take place because in England and Australia and in other countries they do not believe in stopping these demonstrations unless they become violent.

On the field they do.

As I say, they do not stop them unless they become physically violent. This becomes an impossible situation, and I do not know how hon. members can sit here in the year 1971, in a world that is two-thirds Coloured and at the tip of an African continent with about 240 million Black inhabitants, and expect to get away with this sort of nonsense. [Time expired.]

Sir, really, the hon. member for Houghton may stand and coo with her true feminine loveliness until tomorrow morning, but she does not bluff this side of the House. We know that she advocates a multi-racial government in South Africa, in which the non-Whites will be in the majority. She advocates full multi-racial sport; she endorses what the head of the anti-apartheid movement said. Now the hon. member is keen to state that many responsible people in Britain were also opposed to the tour, and then she even wants to link this up with Peter Hain’s conduct. Let us take a brief look at this gentleman, Peter Hain, and his bands of hired demonstrators. The organization that supported Peter Hain in cancelling several tours abroad was, inter alia, the Communist Party. Are these the friends to which the hon. member wants to refer?

You did not hear what I said. I said “as well as”.

No, I listened to the hon. member’s speech. There were, inter alia, the following organizations: South African Non-Racial Olympic Committee, Anti-Apartheid Movement, Campaign against Racialism in Sport, Halt all Social Tours, Association against Racial Discrimination in South Africa, the South African Defence and Aid Fund, the Institute of Race Relations and Stop 1970 Tour. Sir, no one would touch most of these organizations with a barge-pole. But, Sir, I shall leave the hon. member’s questions at that, because they were more specifically addressed to the hon. the Prime Minister.

I should like to come back to the hon. member for Yeoville’s outburst here.

His volcanic eruption.

Yes, the hon. member’s volcanic eruption. How long does the hon. member expect the hon. the Prime Minister to wait for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to speak about sport? How long was he supposed to wait? Because in his first few introductory words and in his half-hour speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to sport, according to my notes, no less than four times. I do not have his Hansard report.

I shall not dispute that.

He referred to sport no fewer than four times and said that sport would be discussed, and then he referred to certain incidents in sport. I now ask: How long was the hon. the Prime Minister supposed to wait for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to speak about sport? Or can the hon. member for Yeoville tell us what the Opposition was afraid of? For two days now hon. members on that side have been speaking about Bantu administration, while they would have the opportunity to discuss these matters under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. What were they afraid of? Were they afraid of discussing sport while the by-election in Witbank was in progress yesterday? They had two days in which to discuss it.

They evaded it in the Budget debate as well.

Last week during the Budget debate they had a chance to discuss sport. No, Sir, the hon. member for Yeoville does not impress anyone with his outburst here. He challenged us to quote the name of any member of the United Party who said he supported this demonstration at Newlands. What did the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who is chewing so nicely there, say according to the Sunday Times of 4th April? The report reads—

Nowhere has the hon. member denied his support for this demonstration. The hon. member will probably be the next to speak and then he can give his answer. But there is proof that the hon. member did so. The hon. member for Pinelands was terribly angry this afternoon. It was priceless to watch from this side who the people were on the other side who became angry while the hon. the Prime Minister was speaking— from the hon. member for Yeoville in the front benches all the way down to the back benchers on that side. The hon. member for Pinelands lost his temper this afternoon at the hon. member for Stellenbosch, but let us confine ourselves for a moment to a few of the matters the hon. member spoke about. The hon. member says that he expects sports matters to be discussed at a high level. But what does the United Party do? The same Saturday evening and Sunday morning, even before the newspapers had been printed, after this demonstration and walk-off at Newlands, the United Party itself jumps onto the bandwagon. There is no doubt about that. I do not want to stand here quoting passages, Sir, but you may just look at the front page of the Sunday Times of 4th April, and also at the back page of the same issue where the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Pinelands furnish comments.

Read it out.

If one has another look at this front page, what does one see? What is this newspaper, which is in sympathy with the United Party, doing?

Quote it.

No, I only have 10 minutes. I shall send this page across to the hon. member; he may read it himself. What was the first thing this newspaper did? They phoned Mr. Peter Hain; they phoned South Africa’s most detestable enemy in London and asked him for his comments; he was delighted about it, and the Sunday Times placed his comments in large black print. The hon. member for Maitland is probably terribly glad about that.

Read what he said.

The report reads—

Go on.

The hon. member must tell this Committee whether he shares Hain’s joy. I shall send the cutting across for the hon. member. Sir, what else do our friends do? Mr. Basil D’Oliveira is telephoned to see whether they cannot draw a bit of venom there, but he conducts himself like a decent sportsman. Mr. Gary Sobers is telephoned by them, and he does the same. That same day, of course, the Progressive Party climbed onto the same bandwagon. Unfortunately my time is very limited and I cannot go into that now. The hon. member for Pinelands comes along here and adopts the attitude that there must only be terribly high level discussions about sport here, and when the hon. member for Stellenbosch refers to the players’ conduct and indicates that they are distorting relationships in South Africa, the hon. member for Pinelands also holds that against him. I want to tell the hon. member that the whole of South Africa has the utmost respect for these cricket players who were playing at Newlands, both as people and as cricket players, but then those people must also see to it that they keep the respect of the South African public; they must not leave the impression with people that gaining a Springbok blazer is so important that a man is prepared to sacrifice his own self-respect and the self-respect of his country. One must not do that and then expect people not to comment on it; then those same cricket players must, in the presence of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, according to the Cape Times of 8th April, 1971 … [Interjection.] That is what is reported here—

And then the names of a few players are mentioned here.

That was a skit by Harry Lawrence.

Comments by players are quoted here. I am not referring to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Comments are made here by players. Those players must nevertheless also be careful in their references to political figures in the Government of the country. I think it would be very good advice, and I would be glad if the hon. member for Pinelands would share in this standpoint of mine that these cricket players of ours, and any sportsmen in South Africa, must modify their conduct in such a way that we retain our respect for them, and they must leave politics to us and confine themselves to sport.

But the Government must set them the example.

Exactly, But don’t let me comment on your sympathy for the demonstration that took place. What one finds even more disappointing is that while two Coloured, well-renowned cricket players conduct themselves so responsibly in their comment in the Sunday Times, our own South African captain, Ali Bacher, comes along and says: “I wish I had been there”. No, I think that if the hon. member for Pinelands tells us that these matters must be argued at a higher level, hon. members must allow us to argue them according to our view of life applicable in South Africa, and let us look at the clashes in world sport, which are clashes between different views of life; that is the sort of clash we are involved in. We on this side say that our traditional view of life includes, inter alia, the principle of multi-nationality, and with that principle in hand we are prepared to enter the world and test conditions that clash with us against the principle that we have a firm grip on. [Time expired.]

I think the hon. member for Potchefstroom carried on here with the insinuations made previously in regard to the cricketers. I want to say that I am surprised, because I have never found that hon. member being personal, and I was rather surprised that he should carry on with it.

I did not insinuate anything.

I want to say, in any care, that we reject this insinuation with the contempt it deserves. I will in the course of my speech deal in passing with the whole question of the cricketers, and I think I will reply to the hon. member then. What surprises me here is that we have been debating this question of sport for quite a few hours now and the real crucial issue, the issue of South Africa’s position in international sport, has not been touched on by that side of the House. I want to say that from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Sport and the other speakers onwards, they have all begged this question of our future position in international sport, and as a sportsman.

What? As a politician, not a sportsman.

I am going to take no notice of the hon. the Minister of Sport. I want to say that every sportsman in South Africa and every sports administrator, and every lover of sport, is concerned with this question of our isolation in international sport. And I believe this is what we should be debating today. It is common cause that we are heading for total sports isolation and it is common cause that not a single sports body in South Africa has been expelled from any of the international controlling bodies because they had in any way contravened the statutes of that body or were not in good standing with that body. In each and every case action has been taken against them because of this Nationalist Party Government’s completely outdated, unrealistic and vacillating sports policy. This is absolutely true and I want to say that I am certain that every sports lover waited with bated breath today to hear something from the Prime Minister which would give them hope with regard to South Africa’s future participation in international sport. But what did we have from the hon. the Prime Minister? I want to say, with respect, that I believe he loves sport and that he would sincerely like to see us in international sport, but let me say with respect, too, that what the hon. the Prime Minister came up with here today will completely confuse the issue and I believe will nullify any. chance we had of getting back into international sport What the Prime Minister forgets is that the outside world does not believe that this is a multi-national country; they believe this is one country. To come along and suggest that we must give possibly 22 different nationalities the opportunity of playing international sport is the biggest lot of nonsense I have ever heard. I think the hon. the Prime Minister knows that the overseas controlling bodies recognize only one controlling body in a country, and he has put us on a very dangerous path today. I am very glad that the question of table tennis was mentioned, because we know what happened there. The non-White body was recognized and when that same non-White body then applied for permission to play in a world tournament, this Government refused them visas. Is this going to be the pattern for the future? This is possibly the most dangerous step that we have ever taken in sports relations. I know the Prime Minister tends to be very optimistic in his outlook in regard to sport, and I want to say that in that speech he made in Cape Town during the parliamentary elections, he said—

And in reply to an interjector, he said this—

I would like to hear from the hon. the Prime Minister how he came to this optimistic assessment of our position in international sport, because at that time we had already been barred from two Olympic Games; we had been kicked out of the Olympic Council; we were either suspended or expelled from the sports of football, judo, basketball, fencing, table tennis, and weight-lifting; two cricket tours between England and South Africa had been stopped: and our tennis-players had been debarred from taking part in the Davis Cup. It was against this background that the Prime Minister was so optimistic. Let me say that I think we have to accept the fact that South African sports bodies have been acted against because of the Government’s sports policy, a policy which has brought us to the very brink of complete international sports isolation, a policy which has given our political enemies overseas the opportunity to mount attacks against us through sport because it is a very easy avenue, and a sports policy that has given agitators—and I say this advisedly—like Dennis Brutus and Peter Hain the very sticks with which to beat us out of almost every international arena in the world. What is most important is that this sports policy has resulted in something which is completely out of character with South Africa and completely foreign to our way of life, i.e. demonstrations against this particular policy by eminent sportsmen on the field of play. In passing I should like to say that I am not going to take sides. I am not going to discuss the merits of this particular demonstration. But I want to say that it is a sorry day for South Africa and a sorry day for sport when people of this eminence, people who brought lustre to the name of South Africa, people who have been our best ambassadors overseas, have to resort to that type of demonstration. It shows that there is something very seriously wrong with our whole approach to sport. I have been to four international sport congresses and I know the feeling of hatred and venom which one meets over there. I have gone along there and tried to put South Africa’s case and believe me, if we do not adopt the policy as set out by my leader, I want to be prophetic and say that within the next year or two we will be completely isolated in international sport. I know that the hon. the Prime Minister said that sport was important but not as important as many other things. I agree with him. But I believe that we can hold our sports relations, can take part in sport again and that we can be heard again in the councils of the world if the people over there can sincerely assume that any person in South Africa will be allowed to represent his country overseas on merit. That is exactly what the United Party policy will do. I almost want to beg the hon. the Prime Minister to forget about this scheme of a multi-national sports set-up in this country. It can never work, it will be completely confusing and he will get no thanks from non-White or White sportsmen.

I am very glad that the hon. member for Johannesburg North has just spoken. At least he spoke honestly. He is a serious sportsman that wants to see multi-racial sport. He is a person who does not care whom he plays with, how he plays and what results that may have. The hon. member has now totally compromised his party. As far as this policy of his is concerned, he has in the past weeks and months made propaganda for pressure to be exercised on the Government to change its sports policy. [Interjections.] I say that this hon. member is at least honest in telling us that, as far as he is concerned, he believes in multiracial sport.

I should like to refer to something the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said. In reply to the hon. the Prime Minister he said that there were not great differences in principle between us and them as far as sport is concerned. I have never in my life heard such an opportunistic utterance. Everything the United Party has thus far done in the sphere of sport is devoid of principle. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that there is not a great difference in principle between them and us. There is a world of difference between us and them. The hon. member for Johannesburg North gave a beautiful illustration of this in the speech he just made. As he himself expressed it, the difference is one of a multi-national approach as against a multi-racial approach.

In one team.

One team as far as he is concerned. The hon. member asked whether we thought that every people in South Africa should send its own team overseas. The answer is yes; we do think so. Can that hon. member give me a reply to this question? Does the hon. member think that a team from Lesotho must go and play as a South African team? Or must it go and play as a team from Lesotho? Give us a reply to that. There is the multi-national approach, and that is not my approach. We did not create Lesotho. Another people created Lesotho, and if Lesotho can play football and take part in the Olympic Games, why cannot the Tswana also do so? There is surely no difference between the two. Sir, I shall tell you what bothers me, as far as the United Party is concerned. If there is anyone at all who wants to criticize the National Party they can be sure that they will pick up the United Party riding on the back of the wagon of their criticism, and that that party will join them in singing a duet, regardless of the principle laid down, regardless of what the party itself believes in, regardless of what the party has said in the past.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

No. This evening I want to tell the sportsmen: If they pick up the United Party as supporters in any criticism they have against the National Government, they must bear this statement in mind, which is a very true one: If you have the United Party as a friend you do not need enemies. I say so, because if any agitation, or whatever else, is planned, the United Party will make a mess of it. It is the National Party’s fundamental political philosophy which has been emphasized again by the Prime Minister this evening, i.e. that we in South Africa are developing here on a multi-national basis and not on a multi-racial basis. It is “multi-national sport” as opposed to “multi-racial sport”. Our Prime Minister emphasized it in April 1967, and he said it again today. What is the United Party’s standpoint? In 1967 the United Party agreed passionately with the Prime Minister. I now quote from Hansard of 8th April, 1967 (Vol. 20, column 3998). This is what Sir de Villiers Graaff said at the time—

That is the only difference in principle, Sir. He agrees that we should not participate in multi-racial sport, and I wish the hon. member for Johannesburg North would remember that. Now I want to quote what the hon. member for Yeoville said. That hon. member spoke almost like a National Party member when he made mention of the M.C.C. This is what he said on 8th February, 1967 (Vol. 19, column 926)—

We also say so. He continues—

Sir, it was not National Party members who said that, but a United Party member. What do they say now? Over the week-end the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a statement on sport. Here is the essential part of his statement, and I want hon. members to note how far he deviates from his 1967 policy—

He has now come back completely to multi-racialism. Let me just give him the final proof of that. I quote from this morning’s Burger. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this: I do not. of course, know whether this report is correct, but he is sitting here in the House and he can tell us what the position is. In this morning’s Burger a report appears of an interview conducted by telephone with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The relevant portion of the report refers to an interview he conducted with a certain Paul Raffaele of Sydney in Australia. It reads as follows (translation)—

If that is not complete recognition of multi-racialism in sport, then I do not know what is.

I gave Sapa a correction.

I accept the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave Sapa a correction. I should like to know what that correction is, because if he did not say it, how does he get round this policy where he nevertheless said in a Press statement to the South African Press:

“… to facilitate the selection of mixed South African teams and to enable them to play in South Africa and abroad”. This is now surely “mixed teams- in South Africa.

What about your swimming team?

No, first reply to the question about the U.P.’s position. The trouble with the U.P. is that it has no political philosophy. They move from point to point.

But what did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say in the House today. He said that he would allow the sports administrators to tell him how far he must go. I am amazed at the fact that a political leader in South Africa can go so far as to leave an important matter such as the race relations of his country in the hands of sports administrators alone. If they were to ask for a mixed South African team to play in South Africa he would concede to this. In other words, they have no policy; nevertheless the United Party accuses this side of the House of not having any principles. The hon. the Prime Minister’s explanation of our sports policy is one that ought to satisfy everyone. In addition it is also based on principles. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Prinshof said that there was a very great difference between their policy and ours in that theirs was a “veelvolkige” policy and ours a “veelrassige” policy. It seems to me that, whatever differences there may be. merely calling them by different names, does not make them so. It is quite clear from what the hon. the Prime Minister said that under their policy there can be a mixed South African Davis cup team chosen on merit. That is what is achieved under our policy, perhaps in a different way. The hon. the Prime Minister falls back on his words, but they have no meaning. The same applies to the Olympic team Under their policy a mixed Olympic team could be chosen. Indeed, if it is so simple to avoid having a mixed situation by calling it “veelvolkig”, then one wonders why the Nationalist Party continues with any of their social separation measures; because, strictly speaking, if you can overcome everything, if you can change a mixed situation into a non-mixed situation by calling it “veelvolkig”, why can it not be done in regard to social separation in all the other spheres in South Africa? We would be glad to hear from the hon. member for Prinshof on that point.

Where we have had these important policy statements, one feels inclined to overlook some other important matters which are not directly in point. I do not think we can fail to bring one matter to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to the recent handling of the plans for a tour by our South African cricket team to Australia. It seems pretty clear, and I hope the hon. the Minister of Sport will take the opportunity to make it clear, that the South African Cricket Association, in fact, asked to be allowed to select a team on merit in order to tour Australia. If the hon. the Minister of Sport would clarify the position, then I would know precisely where I stand. But the hon. the Minister may prefer to say it in his own time.

You go on.

Very well. At any rate, it is quite clear to me that the South African Cricket Association, in dealing with the matter, asked that their request to the Government for such a trial, be resubmitted. What startles me about this, is that it should have been refused in the light of this new development in the Government’s sports policy. In terms of the Government’s sports policy, if a body insists that certain conditions be complied with, then the Government concedes the point. Apparently, if it is merely a request from your own association in order to facilitate their position in international sport, then the Government is unhelpful. I suggest that this is a ludicrous state of affairs. The same applies to the “second-best” request of the Cricket Association, in other words, to allow two non-White members to accompany the team. Now this is clear to me, and I hope the hon. the Minister will take us into his confidence, but if he does not want to, one can prove it up to the hilt if he is not prepared to discuss it: In fact this was only the second-best suggestion, which was put forward by them when the Government was not prepared to look at a method of choosing our best team on merit. That is even more startling in the light of the new Government policy. Even in the light of their old policy one would have thought they would have permitted it, because the statements of our tennis representatives to the Davis Cup meeting, made it perfectly clear that the Government had given permission for our Davis Cup team to be chosen on merit.

So it would be a complete somersault for them then to deny that right to the cricket team. I suggest that they did do a somersault and now they have done a further somersault.

Now I want to come to another matter which I think should be drawn to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister. That is what is known as “Waring’s challenge”, the challenge of the hon. the Minister of Sport to cricket people. Either the hon. the Prime Minister guided the hon. the Minister of Sport in issuing his challenge, or it is what they call in law, a “frolic of his own”. It would be interesting to hear what …

He called their bluff.

There hon. members have it. “He called their bluff.” The challenger by the hon. the Minister of Sport was that cricketers should state that they favoured racially integrated cricket at all levels. The hon. the Minister of Sport said he was not prepared to allow gestures; but that he was quite prepared to take a different attitude …

No, I did not.

Yes, I will read your words as reported in the Argus. I quote—

Fully prepared to take it to the Cabinet

I suggest that the inference is completely clear that the hon. the Minister was quite prepared to allow this and certainly prepared to consider that there should be multi-racial sport at club level. He clearly showed a willingness to take this to the Cabinet. This proves the fact that this was an inference that can be drawn. I suggest that it implies clearly that the hon. the Minister of Sport believes that the Cabinet would consider the matter seriously for possible acceptance. The hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation smiles. The hon. the Minister reveals by his smile, and the other hon. member revealed by his interjection about calling their bluff, that he was playing politics. We politicians knew that he was playing politics, and I said in a statement that he was being childish. I think he was. But quite a large number of the public were misled. There was a hurry and a scurry and everybody from top to bottom were then sounded as to whether they would agree to this or to that. The hon. the Minister was playing politics and if I may say to him, because he is a rugby player of renown, in rugby parlance this was a piece of dirty play. [Interjections.] I am a referee and I know that to boo the referee is extremely bad form, but it is even worse form to play dirty. I have much sympathy for people who boo a player who plays dirty. I want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister whether this was done with his consent because if it was, I would like his explanation. If it was not done with his consent, I would like to report the hon. the Minister of Sport to him for indulging in petty politics in regard to a most important matter. I trust that the hon. the Minister of Sport or the hon. the Prime Minister will clarify the matter, because there is no doubt that great harm was done to our situation in international sport as a result of this. A great upset was caused amongst clubs locally, none of whom have asked for this. May I end by saying that United Party policy makes provision to relax our legislation when at the national level the sports bodies ask us to be allowed to take certain action. It does not contemplate in the slightest what goes on at lower levels and for anybody to suggest the contrary is to be wide of the mark in regard to our policy.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the hon. member that whatever happens in this House I have always had and will always have a fine regard for him. But I think that the hon. member when he used the words “dirty play” was really not only overreaching the bounds of propriety in this House, but I think our personal relationships …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, was it not a reflection on the Chair to say that it is beyond the bounds of propriety on this House?

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

The hon. member for Durban Point must not show his upset about Wi thank in this way. I think the hon. member for Pinelands carried the matter far beyond ordinary criticism or debate.

I said “in rugby parlance”.

I heard exactly what the hon. member said. I now want to read out to the hon. member the first statement I made when the Cricket Board published their statement, which I had advised them not to publish because it would do a lot of harm to cricket in general. My statement was published in the newspapers and I will only read the last part of it. It read as follows—

The hon. member referred to my statement saying to the cricketers that if they say that they want multi-racial cricket at all levels I will take the matter to the Cabinet. I did not say this to the Cricket Association, but to the cricketers. I now want to read the cricketers’ statement. It reads as follows—

I want to tell hon. members what the Argus said. I will read out of the Argus:

[Interjections.]

This was in the Argus. Now I want to tell hon. members why I said I would take the matter to the Cabinet. The hon. member has said on many occasions that I am a dictator of sport in South Africa. I am the avenue of conveying to the Cabinet certain sporting problems that are brought to me. I do convey them to the Cabinet. If that is a terrible crime, then I am guilty of a terrible crime in saying—“You come and bring this to me, and I will take it to the Cabinet, but I am not in favour of multi-racial cricket”. Now I want to know who could be misled? The only people who could be misled are the hon. members on that side of the House, who are trying to find and make political capital.

Can you recollect that some people said that you were calling their actions a bluff. Is there no truth in that?

I am giving the hon. member what I said. I am giving him the statement. He read out of the Argus and so did I. He must know therefore that that was the line I took. But now he must say to me whether I was wrong in saying what I said, namely if he comes to me as representative of an association and says that they want multi-racial cricket at all levels, that they want multi-racial leagues, I will then take it to the Cabinet. I do not believe in it as a principle. Is it wrong that I should then say “If you come, I shall take it to the Cabinet”? Or should I just have ignored them and said “Go to the devil”?

Why did you then make the suggestion?

Because I wanted them to understand. This was not the Cricket Association. I was speaking to the players. When they said they wanted multi-racial cricket, that players are only to be considered on merit on the cricket field, I wanted to know what they meant by “the cricket field”. Was it the international cricket field or did it mean the cricket field at all levels?

Obviously the international cricket field.

Oh, no, it is not Let me explain what the situation is. Hon. members can then show me just how they support these cricketers. They first talk about the South African Cricket Association, and then they say: “And furthermore subscribe to merit being the only criterion on the cricket field”. I want to ask the hon. member for Umbilo something. The first point they make is with regard to the South African Cricket Association bringing in two non-Whites. The second point is that they subscribe to the principle of merit as the only criterion on the cricket field. Now, is that general or is it not?

They are referring to international cricket.

Oh no. Why do they say “and furthermore …”?

Where do they ask for multi-racial cricket at club level?

I will come to that question.

Order! I regret to draw stumps at this stage.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.