Mr. Speaker, I move—

Sir, this Bill is part of the pattern arising from the decision of the Government on the reports of the Borckenhagen Commission and the Schumann Commission, but runs contrary to the recommendations contained in those two reports. Accordingly we opposed it during the previous stages. We are now at the Third Reading and this is equally unacceptable to us, as have been the previous two stages.

In terms of this very short Bill the National Transport Commission is going to be cloaked with even greater authority and more autonomy than it has exercised and enjoyed in the past; in fact it will now even be further beyond the control and the direction of the hon. the Minister and thus of this House. That then will be the position of the National Transport Commission in the discharge of the functions vested in it by various Acts. Included in those functions will be the function to act as a court of appeal in matters such as increases in bus fares. There the commission has the power to say either yea or nay without being under the obligation to explain to the hundreds of thousands of affected persons how it arrived at its particular decision. Moreover, the National Advisory Committee on Roads with provincial representation is hereby abolished. Furthermore, the Bill reduces the authority and powers of provincial councils, of Administrators-in-Executive as far as the siting of national roads and control of traffic are concerned. The representation the Administrators of the provinces had on the National Transport Commission is removed by this Bill.

In short, this Bill extends a bureaucratic form of government to the sphere of national roads and to the control of traffic on them. In the circumstances it contains principles which are totally unacceptable to this side of the House and, consequently, we shall oppose its Third Reading.

I pointed out yesterday, during the Committee Stage discussions, that the bureaucratic rights the National Transport Commission has at present were granted to it by the United Party Government in 1930.

The hon. member stated that this Bill was contrary to the recommendations of the Borckenhagen Commission and the Schumann Commission. But, in fact, this Bill has nothing to do with those two commissions. These were discussed when the National Roads Bill was dealt with.

*Then there are just two more things I want to point out. These are that this House will still have the opportunity of discussing the policy of the National Transport Commission in respect of national roads, i.e. under the Vote of the hon. the Minister, when hon. members will be able to avail themselves of the annual report of the Department of Transport,

Mr. Chairman, I rise to seek an explanation from the hon. the Minister of Interior, but the Minister is not in the House, nor is his Deputy. I wonder who would be responsible in the Government for answering a question that I wish to raise. I move, in the circumstances—

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment, as printed on the Order Paper—In

The amendment that is before us from the Other Place is an amendment by the Minister himself to add a new subsection (3) (d) to provide that in respect of detentions for interrogation. the Attorney-General in whose area of jurisdiction any person is being detained under subsection (1) may at any time stop the interrogation of such person and thereupon such person shall be released from custody immediately. This amendment is acceptable to this side of the House. The prosecutor acts normally under the control of the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General should also be able to stop proceedings which have been started by the prosecutor, as one of his agents. This is normal in the case of criminal proceedings and we agree that this provision should be extended here. But the difficulty is, of course, that the Attorney-General will not know when someone has been detained under this section. Indeed, one of the suggestions which have been made as to why this power should reside with the magistrate and not with the judge is that people would have to be taken to a judge in the capital of that province or in that local division of the Supreme Court from wherever they may be and then be returned there even two weeks. The Attorney-General will not know in the result when these cases have occurred of people having been detained. It seems to us that it is very important that if the Attorney-General is going to exercise this power—and I may say that this is an acknowledgment by the hon. the Minister and the Government that it is necessary to have further protection in respect of persons who are detained—the Attorney-General is not going to be in the position to exercise his discretion unless he knows of the detention. We would therefore like to amend this amendment of the hon. the Minister so as to provide that the Attorney-General shall be made aware in every case where an order is made under this section, so that he can in fact intervene if he feels so inclined. In the very nature of things the Attorney-General cannot be aware of what is happening in every magisterial district in his province. Take the Cape Province The Attorney-General here sits in Cape Town. He cannot know what is happening in Upington or various other places far away from Cape Town. In the Transvaal the position is exactly the same. The Attorney-General, sitting in Pretoria, is not going to be aware of what is happening in the magistrate’s court in Naboomspruit or any other place which is far from Pretoria. So, as I say, we accept the amendment of the hon. the Minister as putting in a further safeguard, but we feel that it can be more effectively a safeguard if the Attorney-General is made aware of the detention order in every case. So we would like to move the following amendment to the Minister’s amendment—

One appreciates that anyone may make representations to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General may then call for the papers and he may then use the powers given to him in terms of the hon. the Minister’s amendment to this clause. But there may be cases where someone is not informed. Relatives, or whoever it may be, may not be informed as to the whereabouts or the arrest of the person concerned. If there is any reason known to the Attorney-General why that interrogation should not continue, then the Attorney-General’s attention should be drawn to the case immediately so that he may apply his mind to it. As the amendment stands at the moment, the power is there and it may be exercised, but if the amendment I propose is accepted the Attorney-General will be made aware in every case and will have to exercise his mind in respect of it. This means not just in regard to the order which is made initially or the order which is made every two weeks, but he may, if there is anything peculiarly within the knowledge of the Attorney-General, in fact stop the interrogation, whereupon there shall be an automatic release of the detainee. There are many factors which may exist. One may find, for example, that the person to be prosecuted, in respect of whom evidence is required from the person being interrogated, has left the country, or that there is other evidence which the Attorney-General in the nature of things knows about, which nobody else knows about. He may feel that it is not necessary to continue further with the investigation of the case because of this other knowledge he has. I hope the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment. It will not involve any administrative difficulty and it will ensure that the Attorney-General is made aware of every case so that he can more properly exercise the power which the hon. the Minister wishes to give him in respect of detainees.

I rise to support the hon. member for Durban North, and in doing so I must say quite frankly to the hon. the Minister that I find it difficult to understand why he was unable to accept a similar amendment moved in the Other Place. It seems to me that, if the hon. the Minister thought it either necessary or desirable to introduce the amendment which he has introduced—and he must have felt it to be so, otherwise he would not have moved it—the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Durban North is a necessary corollary to the hon. the Minister’s amendment because, without it, the value of the hon. the Minister's amendment is minimal. I say that it will be minimal because the Attorney-General will have no way of knowing what is taking place, unless the particular matter is brought to his attention by some person. The Criminal Procedure Act does make provision for interested persons to bring a matter of this sort to the attention of the Attorney-General, but there are few people who know of this provision in the Act. Whilst the general presumption of the law is that people are presumed to know the law, this is a matter which the ordinary person is unlikely to know about. Unless interested persons do know of this provision, they will not be aware of the fact that they have the power to bring a matter to the attention of the Attorney-General. Whereas, if it is made obligatory on a prosecutor who has obtained a warrant for the arrest and detention of a person, to forward a statement of the information on which that warrant was obtained to the Attorney-General, this will ensure that in every case the detention of a person under clause 13 of this Bill will be brought to the attention of the Attorney-General. I would have thought that this is possibly one of the objects the hon. the Minister would like to achieve by his own amendment. I would point out that the provisions of clause 13 are far-reaching, although certain safeguards are being provided.

Order! The hon. member must speak on the proposed amendment only and not on the provisions of the clause generally.

With respect, I do submit that I am entitled to relate briefly the effect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Durban North to the remainder of the clause. I have no intention of debating the remainder of the clause at length. In other words, Mr. Speaker, all I wish to do is to refer to the amendment in the context of the clause. I wish to point out to the hon. the Minister that the clause is far-reaching, but that certain safeguards are provided, which I do not want to deal with in any detail. I accept that there are these safeguards but, despite that, the clause is a wide one providing for detention for an indefinite period or until such time as the magistrate concerned is satisfied with regard to the two provisions of clause 13 (3) (b). This leaves the matter in the hands of one person, namely the magistrate. I do believe that one of the objects the Minister has in moving this amendment is to ensure that the detention of a person under clause 13 is brought to the attention of some person other than the magistrate concerned, that other person being the Attorney-General. I would therefore urge the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban North, which would ensure that, in every case, the detention and the grounds for the detention are brought to the attention of the Attorney-General concerned. In conclusion I again want to point out to the hon. the Minister that a magistrate …

Order! The hon. member is now repeating his argument.

I am now repeating an argument which I drew to the attention of the hon. the Minister on a previous occasion.

Yes, but I cannot allow it.

Perhaps you will allow me to say to the hon. the Minister that he is aware of the wide implications of the definition of the word “magistrate”. I suggest that in this context also, having regard to the fact that a comparatively junior and inexperienced man may be handling the detentions under clause 13, it is particularly important that detentions and the grounds for the issuing of a warrant should be brought to the attention of the Attorney-General in every instance. I would therefore urge that the hon. the Minister accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban North.

Mr. Speaker, it has been very gratifying to find that the hon. the Minister has been prepared to listen to our representations with regard to this particular clause, which is so far-reaching. He will know that our representations were, in the first instance, that somebody else should be allowed to intervene. We wanted a judge, of course, but the hon. the Minister has now moved an amendment allowing the Attorney-General to intervene. We accept that and are glad that he has introduced this amendment. The legal fraternity has been very concerned about the effect of this Bill not allowing interference from anybody else. The hon. member for Durban North has now moved an amendment which has the effect of making it obligatory for the prosecutor to forward all the papers to the Attorney-General once a matter has been brought before a court. My hon. friends have pointed out …

Order! The hon. member must bring forward new arguments.

I am coming to that. Sir. I want to give an instance of what happened yesterday, to show the necessity to make it obligatory for somebody to bring it to the notice of the Attorney-General; otherwise He will not know.

This argument has also been raised by the hon. member for Musgrave.

I am just giving an example of what can happen. Yesterday afternoon I was in the Senate Gallery with a foreigner who listened very intently to the debate, because he was very interested. When I explained to him afterwards what effect this amendment of the hon. the Minister will have, he asked who would bring it to the attention of the Attorney-General. I replied that the friends or relatives of the person concerned would most probably have to do it. He then asked me what will happen in the case of a complete stranger like himself who is charged in terms of this measure; who would then intervene for him? Who is going to intervene on behalf of a complete stranger?

The prosecutor will, because he is the representative of the Attorney-General. The hon. member should know that.

All we want to do with our amendment is to make sure that the prosecutor sends the papers to the Attorney-General.

Yes, but this will happen in the ordinary course of events.

If it is going to happen in the ordinary course of events, the hon. the Minister should have no objection to our amendment. We merely want to make sure that proceedings are brought to the notice of the Attorney-General. I do not see how there can be any objection to our amendment

Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak very briefly in support of the amendment which has been moved. I have raised with the hon. the Minister before the point that it is most important for the successful implementation of this anti-drugs policy that we should gain the sentiment and the support of the people.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the amendment and not make a Second Reading speech.

No, Sir, I am not making a Second Reading speech; I am speaking specifically to the amendment.

This being so, I think it is important that the Attorney-General should be brought into the picture, because to a large extent the Attorney-General is the repository of the confidence of the Government in so far as public policy is concerned. We have seen this in respect of other Bills; we have seen it in respect of the Excelsior case and the immorality legislation. The Attorney-General is trusted by the Government to be the faithful interpreter of public policy where such matters arise in the courts and where it is important to maintain public policy or to allow public policy to dictate the manner in which the law shall be interpreted. Here we have a case where it is most important—I think the hon. the Minister acknowledges it—that we must throughout the implementation of this legislation, which has an important mission in our society, maintain the full confidence of the people. There is already a tendency amongst young people, certain newspapers and other organs to regard this Bill as being hostile to the permissive trend.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the amendment.

Sir. I am trying to relate my argument as closely as possible to this amendment.

This being so, I believe that it would be most useful to the purposes of the hon. the Minister if he were to allow this amendment, because it would permit the Attorney-General, in the public interest, in the interest of maintaining the maximum effectiveness of this Bill and maintaining the purposes of this Bill and its impact on society, to intervene or to modify or to mitigate where this is necessary in the interest of the effective administration of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Opposition reminds me today of the experience I had with a small Coloured newspaper-seller a short while ago. Before dealing with the arguments of hon. members on that side of the House, I just want to tell this little story first. This little new-paper-seller was walking in front of me in the street and rummaging his pockets for money. He counted his money over and over again.

What has that got to do with the Bill?

Wait a minute, I am illustrating the matter. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister is replying to all the irrelevant arguments raised by speakers. The hon. the Minister may continue.

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.] Would the Opposition really be so petty at the end of this debate? Can you believe it that people do not even want to listen to your arguments? As I was saying, the newspaper-seller was walking in front of me, counting his money. The money was obviously short. I then decided to do my good deed for the day and l overtook him from behind and asked what the trouble was. He then told me that his money was short. I put my hand into my pocket, gave him 20 cents, and walked on without saying anything further. Thereupon he came running after me and told me that he needed another 20 cents to have the right amount of money. Now, hon. members on that side of the House made representations and yet more representations in the previous debate. I listened to them. Subsequently I also received representations from various legal bodies, the Law Society and others, who brought certain matters to my attention. In the light of all the facts and new information at my disposal I decided that I would, in fact, move an amendment myself. Now the Opposition comes running after, saying that it is still short of money. This case is identical with my experience with the newspaper-seller. I first want to state the reason why I moved this amendment myself in the Other Place. I regard the entire procedure which is under way at the moment as a preliminary investigation. The Attorney-General is the person who is represented by the public prosecutor and who initiates the proceedings by an affidavit which he has to make Consequently I regard it as a preliminary investigation. In consequence of his affidavit the magistrate decides, as provided by clause 13, what exactly is to happen in this connection. Suppose the Attorney-General obtains other information, from whatever source, and this results, for instance, in the man being detained for interrogation becoming the accused in another case, or even eventually in the same case, then he must be able to stop the investigation, He must then be able to say that he is charging the man under a totally different situation and that the accused need no longer be detained under the original charge. Then he must be able to say that he wants to charge him under an entirely different Act or situation and that he accordingly wants the original case to be stopped. Now it has been asked here why I introduced the amendment as it stands here. What I have just said is the specific reason why I did it. Otherwise we would be in the position that the public prosecutor himself would not be able to stop the case which he had initiated. This is the reason why this amendment is before the House, not the reason which those hon. members have in mind.

As hon. members know, a certain procedure is provided for and laid down in the Criminal Procedure Act. In that Act the Attorney-General is given certain powers. He is ultimately in full control of all procedures in connection with this matter. There is absolutely nothing at the moment to prevent him from arranging, by means of a general decision or a general instruction, for all public prosecutors to bring all these cases to his attention. If we were to go and write the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act which we want applied into each new piece of legislation, what a fool’s paradise would that result in?

This is different. It is not a normal process of law.

My argument is very clear that the Attorney-General has the power to do it in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act. In the light of what has been argued here, I say that he has the power at the moment to say that all public prosecutors, wherever they may be, are to inform him when such a case occurs. He can say this now. Why does it have to be written into the legislation once again? In the light of that I can only repeat that he is in control of the entire situation. He can order it to be done. I am not prepared to write it into the Bill again merely for the sake of the face-saving of the Opposition. I am prepared …

Where does the face-saving come in?

Yes, there is facesaving. The newspapers instructed that side of the House over the week-end to put up a fight about this legislation and now the hon. members want to do so. That is the reason for it. [Interjections.] We have understood each other very well up to now, but if the Opposition is now going to adopt this attitude, I can also adopt the attitude I am now adopting. Over the week-end they were accused of having acted too spinelessly in connection with this legislation and now they want to put up a fight about it. That is what lies behind it. [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon. the Minister should rather confine himself to the amendment.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, I have put my argument as to why I moved my amendment. I stand by it and I am not prepared to accept the amendment moved by those hon. members.

When the House adjourned last night I was addressing the hon. member for Constantia on the speech he had made on this Vote. I indicated that I regarded the hon. member as a very conscientious member but that I could not understand why he had been sarcastic about certain aspects of the report of the department, particularly in regard to the clothing of caddies, in respect of which he raised the usual hollow laugh from members of the United Party. Let me read out to hon. members just what the report says on this matter. Paragraph 7.4 under the heading “Clothing of Golf Caddies” reads —

The hon. member for Constantia holds high positions in various firms and I guarantee that most of those firms provide their labourers with uniforms with the name of the firm on them. In my own small business I do the same. Why do we do it? Because it looks good and makes a good impression. Why, when we get comments from visitors from overseas about the shabbiness of the clothing of caddies, should the department not take the matter up with the object of improving the situation? Let me tell hon. members on that side, particularly the hon. member for Jeppes, who laughs …

I am not laughing: I am just amazed.

He and his colleagues may laugh as much as they please. As far as the department is concerned, it will try to arrange with the golf authorities for this situation to be improved. For that we do not need the support of the United Party; they can object to it as much as they like. We shall carry on and do this. Let me tell hon. members that I am not surprised, seeing the attitude they adopt, that the figures in regard to tourists in the days when they were in power, were so unsatisfactory. I am not surprised that the position was so unsatisfactory under their Government. The hon. member for East London criticized the department when I told him that the year 1969 brought a record number of tourists to this country, i.e. 31 000 odd. But in 1970, i.e. last year, the number was 70 000. Figures talk, and they can carry on as much as they like— we shall carry on and develop tourism in the way we think it ought to be done, despite sneers from that side of the House.

With the object of creating an opportunity for the other side to produce some constructive speeches, I should now like to make an announcement which may assist them. I want to assist them because I do not want to see a repetition of the poor debating efforts we have had from them thus far. This announcement is about the tourism policy of the Government.

The Government's attitude in general to tourism is that of “development" rather than any restriction justified by the word of “co-ordination”. It conveys particularly to the private sector a “progressive” approach rather than one of “over-centralization”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand these hon. members; I really cannot. They called for a Government statement on policy, as did the hon. member for East London, but when one gives it to them they react with a lot of sneers and cheap laughers. [Interjections.]

The Government accepts as its foreign tourism policy the earning of foreign exchange to South Africa as being of major importance and that the emphasis ought not to be placed on the number of tourists as such. For these reasons the State will en deavour to attract to South Africa the selective foreign tourists who can supply the greatest spending value to the country in terms of foreign exchange. The Government must endeavour to ensure that the foreign tourist obtains full satisfaction from his visit to South Africa.

In its approach to an increase in foreign tourism, it does not think in terms of any suggested annual percentage growth rate but with due regard to the above remarks, rather that the intake of such foreign tourism should be based on the limitations placed on such tourist numbers by the available amenities, accommodation and the ability to handle such intake.

In this regard I should like to point out for the benefit of the hon. member for East London City that the figure he quoted, the figure of an increase of 9,7 per cent, was the figure in respect of 1969. For 1970 the overall increase was over 18 per cent. I have already pointed out in reply to the hon. member for Johannesburg North that the percentage of tourists from adjoining territories has gone up very little whereas from European countries, which is our aim now, the percentage has gone up considerably in some cases 40 per cent and in others 25 per cent. This is in accordance with the policy the Government is adopting. i.e. to attract tourists from overseas because we realize that tourism from adjoining territories has almost reached an optimum.

As these amenities and accommodation become more adequate it can be accepted that each year there ought to be a growing increase in the number of tourists and that the growth rate of such visits need only be limited by these factors mentioned.

Tourist promotional efforts should in general be directed to countries from which South Africa has traditionally drawn its population. It, however, appreciates that with the formation of the Southern African Regional Tourist Organization Council, a wider field of tourist promotion will be undertaken by that body.

The Government considers the growth of domestic tourism and recreation as an important factor in the healthy social development of its people. In addition to the Government’s efforts in this regard, the provincial and local authorities are encourage to provide sufficient tourist amenities and attractions of a satisfactory standard to meet the needs of the domestic population. It also accepts the principle that there should he scope for the private sector to operate such amenities which they own, to best advantage with the funds available to them from private and financial resources. The Government will ensure that the combination of domestic and foreign tourist amenities, although developed with a view to ensuring the greatest possible advantage from both domestic and foreign tourism, that no harm should be done to the national interests of the South African citizen. The Government accepts the autonomy of the statutory boards of Satour as the body operating as a foreign tourist marketing and sponsoring agency, and the Hotel Board as the body responsible for matters pertaining to the hotel industry. It does not approve of any proposals that Satour should be incorporated into the Department of Tourism.

The Government in principle accepts the establishment of a tourist advisory committee representative of official and private sectors of the tourist industry.

In view of the Government’s acceptance of an advisory committee on tourism consideration will be given to the reduction of members of the board of Satour. The activities of the board should be more specifically defined in order to effectively attract tourists to South Africa, with the guidance of board members who are specialists in the tourist marketing field. In view of the establishment of the Tourist Advisory Committee, all matters pertaining to the tourist industry will be considered by this committee, including matters referred to if by the Minister of Tourism.

Sir I want to submit to hon. members on that side of the House that if they study this they may find opportunities to offer criticism and comment, and that it would be far better to have a debate in that direction than a debate such as we have had up to now.

Sir, I listened with interest to the announcement of policy by the hon. the Minister of Tourism. I will come back to it in a moment and deal with some of the issues raised. I want, however, to start by referring to a remark which the hon. the Minister passed concerning myself, when he spoke the other evening. Towards the end of his remarks he purported to quote what I had said in regard to hotels and the Government's policy in regard to the Hotel Board. I have here the hon. the Minister’s unrevised Hansard, according to which he said the following—

He was referring to my absence from the House at that moment—

Sir, normally one does not take the hon. the Minister of Sport and Tourism very seriously, but I regard this as a serious matter, because here an hon. Minister, a Minister of State, stood up in this Parliament and purported to quote from Hansard; it stands in his Hansard as a quotation; he said “because I can quote him from Hansard as saying". I happen to have a better memory than the hon. the Minister of Tourism and I looked up that debate. I want to place on record that the hon. the Minister’s quotation from Hansard was totally false, that that alleged statement by me was either an attempt to mislead the House or it showed ignorance on the part of the hon. the Minister, because far from the words quoted here, what I said in that debate—and he specified which debate and at what stage of the debate, so the Minister cannot say that it was some other occasion —was this:

Read on!

Very well. I will read on—

Then, Sir, I referred to the 70 per cent and I said the following—

And now?

Why did the hon. the Minister not quote the next words?—

30 per cent of the existing hotels?

Yes. The hon. the Minister of Justice queried my statement and I then went on to say—

“On present structural requirements.” Then I want on to say—

I then continued to deal with the problems. In other words, Sir, the hon. the Minister made a false statement in purporting to quote from Hansard something which does not appear in Hansard and which not only does not appear in Hansard, but the spirit of which does not appear in Hansard and the meaning of which does not appear in Hansard. I demand an apology from that hon. Minister. I am not sure that it does not go further; I am not sure that this is not a breach of privilege where a Minister of State purports to quote from the official records of Parliament and quotes something which does not stand in that record. He has since had two opportunities, if he was incorrectly reported by Hansard, to cowed the report. He has spoken twice since then and he could have said, “I was inaccurately reported”, but he has allowed the impression to remain that his words were a quotation from Hansard. He has allowed those words to stand in quotation marks and I say to the hon. the Minister that it was a false quotation. Sir, if those are the debating tactics of an hon. Minister, then I say it is no wonder that that hon. Deputy Minister is no more than a joke.

I am not a Deputy Minister.

It is no wonder that when it comes to sport the hon. the Prime Minister has to lay down the policy and announce it. When it comes to tourism it is again the hon. the Prime Minister who ordered his Economic Advisory Council to investigate and report on tourism, not the hon. the Minister of Tourism. He was allowed to table the report. That was the extent to which he was allowed to participate, and having tabled the report, when we wanted to quote from the report which he had tabled, he held up his hands in honor and said, “you cannot quote from that; that is secret; it is confidential”. He could not even write “confidential” on the document. Sir, I say that if the hon. the Prime Minister has to draw up a sports policy and if the hon. the Prime Minister has to instruct his Economic Advisory Council to investigate tourism, then it is high time that the hon. the Minister was added as an adjunct to the Prime Minister’s department and that he was paid out of the Prime Minister’s entertainment allowance instead of receiving a separate allowance as a Minister. Sir, we have before us the report of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council and we are not allowed to deal with it. What sort of Minister is this who tables a report and then says that he does not want us to deal with it. What is he afraid of, Sir? He was afraid that we would see, in the report tabled on 19th February, that it was considered urgent that the department should announce a tourist policy. The hon. the Minister has hesitated and today he has come with a tourist policy. Let us look at this policy.

First of all he says his policy for tourism is to be development rather than restriction justified by co-ordination, Now what on earth does that mean, Sir? It is to be development rather than restriction justified by co-ordination! He says it accepts as a foreign tourism policy the earning of foreign exchange for South Africa and that numbers do not matter. He has the disease of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration—numbers do not matter. So first we have a policy which is not interested in the number of tourists, but is interested in the spondulicks, in the money they can bring, but it is not going to be developed. I am sorry, it is going to develop, not be developed, but it is not going to be co-ordinated; but they are going to have selective foreign tourists. Now what are selective foreign tourists? Selective foreign tourists are going to be sought out and attracted. What he means is that they want to be selective, but he says they are going to have selective tourists, [Time expired.]

I want to deal first of all with the report known as the Riekert report. That was a departmental report. There is no obligation on any Minister to table a departmental report. That is recognized in the House. Because I wanted the hon. members on that side of the House to be able to see the recommendations and work out and debate their judgment, I laid the recommendations on the Table with the complete agreement of the hon. the Prime Minister. I put those recommendations on the Table. [Interjections.] Just a moment, I am speaking now. I want to come back to the hon. member for Durban Point, I would like to convey this to the hon. member for Durban Point. I wanted to say to him that this was the situation. The opportunity was there for them to study it and to think in terms of a tourist policy which they could submit to this House as their alternative policy; instead of which we had a debate, and really, anyone who listened to that debate must have said that the Opposition was pathetic when it came to a tourist policy. No tourist policy was discussed, and therefore I have issued the Government’s tourist policy to give the hon. members on that side of the House an opportunity to put up their alternative policy.

Are you going to apologize now?

I do not need to be spoken to by the hon. member for South Coast. I will answer the hon. member for Durban Point. [Interjection.] I did it because I wanted the Riekert recommendations considered. I am not afraid of suggestions. I wanted tourism discussed as a policy matter, but what I did not want was for members to go through all the recommendations one by one from No. I to No. 52. I wanted to give them the background of the recommendations so that they could produce their alternative policy.

Can we discuss it now?

From my point of view, I have no objection. I have given you a policy statement. I have no objection to your raising objections to that policy statement. The idea is now that you can actually come back and criticize the policy statement. [Interjections.] There is one thing I want to avoid, Sir, and I want to avoid it because I do not think it is the right way to debate tourism. I want to avoid hon. members on that side of the House going through each recommendation as apparently was intended when this debate was opened. I want them to say: We do not agree with this point in your policy statement. Take the matter of Satour. The hon. member for East London City agreed entirely with us. We say Satour should remain an independent, autonomous statutory body. We agree. The Riekert report recommended something else, but we agree to this proposal.

When I suggested this I was stopped.

No, the hon. member knows that he referred to a particular item in the recommendations. If he had got up and said: l hope there is no intention whatsoever of taking away the powers of the statutory board, Satour, I would say he would be completely within his rights, but what I did not want was for him to refer to each recommendation as he started, from No. I to No. 52, I said my object was to avoid that. [Interjections.]

Now I want to come back to the hon. member for Durban Point.

Is the Riekert Commission report before us or not?

No, the recommendations have been tabled in the House.

But not for discussion?

As far as I am concerned, if the hon. members want to prolong the debate by discussing the recommendations from No. I to No. 52, they can do so with pleasure. I will have no objection to it. If they think that that is good debating policy and good tactics, they may discuss the report. [Interjections.] Let me speak to the hon. member for Durban Point. I do not want to take up too much time. I have never underrated the hon. member for Durban Point’s ability to try and switch the course of a debate and create some diversion for the United Party, Let me tell the hon. member that, if in my Hansard that is a quotation in italics, I never intended it to be. For that I apologize. All I intended to say was that I could quote from Hansard.

I challenge you to quote from Hansard.

Wait a moment. If, as the hon. member says, what I said was in italics as a quotation and referred to as a quotation, I quite accept that that is wrong. It was not what I intended. What I however do not accept is that the hon. member now tries to create the impression that he made no derogatory remarks about the Hotel Bill and that he never said that there would only be 30 per cent or 31 per cent of the hotels left.

If certain things happen.

Let me be quite frank. Those “certain things” are still part and parcel of the regulations and 95 per cent of the hotels qualify in this regard.

I challenge you to quote it,

The hon. member read the quotation himself. He knows that he cannot get away from it. Anybody who reasonably listened to what he said, will realize that. But, of course, I know the game the hon. member is playing. Nevertheless, anybody who heard what he read from Hansard would appreciate that he conveyed the impression to the House that only 30 per cent of the hotels would be left unless I took some action with my colleague the hon. Minister of Justice.

I want to put another point to the hon. the member, which is a more personal point. I want to put this point to the hon. member and the other members on that side of the House. Over a long period the members on that side of the House have discredited and belittled any English-speaking person who joins the Nationalist Party. [Interjections.] No, it is true. When my old colleague, Minister Trollip, was chairman of their caucus, they could not praise his ability, leadership, etc., enough. Once he became a Nationalist, however, they did not have a good word for him.

What has that got to do with it?

It has a lot to do with it, although I know you do not like it. The same happened in the case of Senator Horwood. I remember when he was one of the economics advisers and backroom boys of the United Party.

When was that?

When I was in the United Party. [Interjections.] Yes, I remember it I remember the compliments that were thrown at his head. They considered him a great economist. But, once he joined the Nationalist Party, you could not find one good word they have to say about him. All they have done is to try and belittle and discredit him.

That is not true.

Yes, it is true. I have been here for 10 years as a Minister and, from my own experience, I know what the object is of the hon. member for Durban Point. It started right at the beginning when I first became a Minister. At a public meeting one of the United Party people asked me how much I got as a Minister. I replied that I thought it was R10 000 a year. He then said that the Nationalists had bought me with R10 000 a year. That is the sort of remark I have heard right throughout the whole period during which I have acted as a Minister. It is about time those hon. members realized that they are the biggest racists In this country. They will only accept an English- or Afrikaans-speaking member if he is a United Party man. But if he is an English-speaking person with the Nationalist Party point of view, they will do everything they can to assassinate his character. [Interjections.] See, you can hear it. Hon. members have now got what they deserve. The hon. member for South Coast is an expert at it. I still remember the days when he turned his back on us when we sat as a Conservative Party group.

What has this to do with tourism?

It has to do with the criticism from the hon. member for Durban Point and yon do not like it when you get an answer. This holier-than-thou attitude of hon. members opposite will get them nowhere.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point tried to give a wide berth to what he had said of the hotel industry in South Africa by making a very distasteful personal attack on the hon. the Minister of Tourism. However, what is the true position in our hotel industry today? If the hon. member were to look at page 5 of the annual report, he would see that at present there are 914 graded hotels in South Africa, four of which are five star hotels, seven of which are four stars hotels, with 52 three star hotels, 165 two star hotels and 686 one star hotels. A total of 240 113 beds are available. Then that hon. member implies that this industry is being regulated. In the past three years about 30 new hotels were opened, and at present there are about 60 hotels in the process of being built and in various stages of planning. The hon. member tries to get away from these facts by making a personal attack on the hon. the Minister. Since the hon. member is so fond of quoting from Hansard, I immediately want to come back to the Hansard report of the hon. member for East London City, the main speaker on tourism on the other side. He is the person that must state his party’s tourism policy as an alternative to that of the Minister. What do we read in the hon. member for East London City’s Hansard?—

That is what the hon. member for East London City, the main speaker on tourism on that side, said. What image is here being conveyed abroad? These utterances of the hon. member, for which I think he ought to apologize to the hon. the Minister, have a very familiar ring and I think I know the origin of these terms the hon. member used. Thereafter the hon. member said—

This is precisely the opposite of what hon. members opposite accused this side of the House of in the discussion of every Vote and Act. In this same speech the hon. member also said: “I think the time is long overdue for the Minister to tell us in what light he sees the non-White tourist in this country, where he fits in and whether he would he welcome to come to this country. We are inclined to remain completely silent on the question of the non-White tourist.” I want to ask the hon. member why he wants to drag in this question of the non-White tourist into this debate. The hon. member surely knows that any non-White tourist who is approved and who has no ulterior motive may, for example, go and look at the Union Buildings, that he is allowed into the Voortrekker Monument, that he is allowed onto Table Mountain and to walk around in the Company’s Gardens. He can do all this undisturbed, and the hon. member knows it. The hon. member also knows that there are special camps for non-White tourists in the Kruger National Park. They are allowed there. Now that hon. member piously comes along and drags non-White affairs into this discussion in order to make a political issue out of it. Is that hon. member doing tourism in this country a favour with this negative and totally permissive spirit he displays? Although that hon. member advocates the mass influx of tourists to this country, I want to say that we should have a policy of selective tourism. Have our own people not prior claim to our beaches? Do our own tourists not have prior claim to our Kruger National Park? During the past year more than 300 000 people visited the Kruger National Park. That is about equal to the big game complement of that National Park. Four out of every five South Africans who would like to holiday there, cannot go. Now that hon. member wants the Kruger National Park trampled to dust and he wants everything the National Parks Board has done to be undone. He wants to deny the South African public its first- borne right. Nothing can go wrong with the system the hon. the Minister announced. With this system matters are under control.

Although our own recreational and tourist resorts are the South Africans' first- borne right, I will concede that the Kruger National Park cannot accommodate more people than it does, in fact, do. We nevertheless do want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to see whether a second Kruger National Park cannot be created at a suitable spot in this country, A second Kruger National Park would carry its full capacity within the foreseeable future. But it is wrong to allow an unrestricted number of overseas visitors to crowd in and raise clouds of dust here, as the hon. member wants. We do not want this. We do not want our country’s character marred. We do not want the natural character of our parks marred by the erection, near these reserves, of sky-scrapers that will overshadow and dominate everything there.

What did you do with the Etosha Pans?

The hon. member for Mooi River has already been given clear replies about the Etosha Pans four or five times this year. If the hon. member does not understand this yet, no one will ever get it into his head.

But I want to come back to the Department’s annual report. With respect to the scornful remark the hon. member for Constantia made about this report, I just want to say that the report gives a very informative insight into the work done by the Department of Tourism. We want to thank the hon. the Minister and his Department for this. On page 5, under the heading “Caravan Parks and Camping Sites”, we read that the popularity of caravan and camping holidays is reflected in the fact that the number of caravans in South Africa increases annually by about 5 000. This is a phenomenal number. According to the reports there are, at present, about 500 caravan parks in the Republic, and many more are being planned and laid out. I now just want to express one trifling point of criticism in this connection, i.e. that health services in some of these caravan parks are perhaps not as adequate as they ought to be. I respectfully want to put it to the hon. the Minister that his Department should liaise with the Department of Health to see whether a uniform approach cannot be introduced into health services in caravan parks throughout the country.

Now, coming back to the hon. member for East London City I want to say that the hon. member spoke very disparagingly of the visitors from our neighbouring states. In the calculation of the actual growth rate of tourism in our country, he left out the figures in respect of Rhodesian visitors. What induces that hon. member to do this? Rhodesia is by far our greatest single source of tourism. That hon. member knows it. In this annual report there are graphs in this connection. Any man, unless he is half blind, will be able to see from these graphs what the growth rate is. In proportion, moreover, these Rhodesians remain in our country for long periods and they consequently spend considerable amounts here. That is what we want. We do not want people who tear around left and right, we want people to come here and stay. Those Rhodesians come here to relax. They do not come here to find fault with our way of life and our political system. I want to repeat that Rhodesia is an important and appreciated source of visitors for South Africa, and that that hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself for what he had to say in his speech about Rhodesia.

You are talking nonsense! I said nothing derogatory about Rhodesia.

We shall look it up in Hansard. Then the hon. member will see it. The hon. member presented us with the ideal Kenya’s achievements in the field of tourism. I want to conclude by saying that this policy, which the hon. the Minister of Tourism announced, is the only policy and the correct policy for us in respect of tourism. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just spoken almost became hysterical because the hon. member for East London City had dared to deal with non-White tourism. Where does he live? Does he live in some dream world? In the report of the hon. the Prime Miniser’s Advisory Council’s investigation—and this report was submitted to the hon. the Minister—specific reference is made to non-White tourism. Is the hon. the Prime Minister now to back the hon. member for Pretoria District because the hon. member for East London City dares to deal with something which is dealt with in this report?

Where?

Page 8 of this report deals with the “Bantoe-beleggingskorporasie en die Xhosa-ontwikkelingskorporasie”, and says attention must be given to the development of projects in the Bantu homelands. It goes on to deal with tourism in Southern Africa at a later stage. How do you have tourism in Southern Africa—in the whole region of Southern Africa—without non-White tourism? The hon. member does not know what he is talking about and it ill behoves him to attack us for raising a fundamental issue which the hon. the Minister for Tourism has not had the guts to deal with. Of course it is fundamental to tourism in Southern Africa, and the large-scale money-spending tour parties, from the rest of the world are affected until we have a clear picture of where we stand in respect of accepting non-White tourists from countries like America and the rest of the world. You cannot close your eyes to this and pretend that it does not exist. Other countries are not like us. They do not stick their heads in the sand. If there is trouble they just do not come. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Tourism, if he is allowed to talk on this subject, to tell us what his attitude is towards non-White tourists.

I now want to come back to the hon. the Minister. He said that we were making ourselves guilty of character assassination, I want to give him an assurance. There is no need to assassinate. If ever I have seen a more compulsive case of political suicide- psychosis than that hon. Minister, I would like to know where one would find it. Every time he opens his mouth, he tries to commit political suicide. He got up to defend himself against a specific attack, on a specific misquotation by himself of the words of a member of this House, and said in defence of himself that we are trying to assassinate his character. What more successful assassination could the hon. the minister carry out on himself than by telling the people of South Africa that he misquotes from Hansard? That is suicide and not assassination, so why shoot a man who has already committed suicide? It is not necessary. However, until he has made that suicide absolute, I believe he owes me and this House a much more specific apology than the mumbled one which he gave that if it is shown as a quotation he accepts that it was not so and that he apologizes. Not only has he misquoted it, but the whole sense is wrong. I challenge him here, and I say that until he does so, he does not deserve to be listened to in this House, i challenge him to quote, as he said again this afternoon, “I can quote from Hansard”. I challenge him to do it. Here is the Hansard. It is Volume 15 of 1965, column 6047. I challenge that hon. Minister to quote what he says he can quote. I challenge him to deny that 70 per cent of the hotels which are classified, or much more, have carried out structural alterations. Have they, or have they not? He would not know. Of course he knows! Even the hon. the Minister knows. Of course they have.

If they have made structural changes, they still register.

That's right. They had to carry them out. Which is exactly what I said. They would not classify without structural alterations. That is what I said. The hon. the Minister has now admitted that he himself knows that I am correct, that at least 70 per cent had to carry out structural alterations. Therefore he is admitting that what he said, he said knowing that what I had said was correct, and knowing, therefore, that what he was attributing to me was incorrect.

No, it wasn’t.

Yes, he knows it. Here is the hon. the Minister’s Hansard. As a man of honour I demand that he now substantiate his allegation. If not, then I say to him that he does not deserve to be listened to if we cannot take the words which he uses in this House as being the truth. The hon. the Minister now has another chance to co-operate in his own suicide, in his own self-assassination, or to clear it by being a man and saying: “I am sorry. I was wrong.” There is the Hansard. The hon. the Minister has unlimited time. He can deal with it in his own time.

Now I come back to the Minister's statement regarding his policy of tourism this afternoon. I want to point out to him that he is in fact saying to hundreds of thousands of potential tourists to South Africa: “You are on the unwanted list in South Africa, because you are not the millionaires; you are the ordinary people. We don’t want you; we want the millionaires”. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir. I quote—

Numbers do not matter—the emphasis should not be placed on the number of tourists. In other words, he is saying to potential tourists: “We don't want you". I am saying, as long as that is his attitude, heaven help the tourist industry in South Africa.

But I go further. Not a single word in this report deals with a major part of the Riekert Commission’s recommendations in regard to hotels, for example its recommendation that the Hotel Board should be the sole inspecting body, which is fundamental. If the Minister had the courage, he would fight to implement that recommendation against his hon. colleague with the other empire over hotels, the National Liquor Board. Here is the Prime Minister’s adviser. The Riekert report says: “One inspection—the Hotel Board’’. I challenge the hon. the Minister now to fight to achieve what his own commission of investigation recommended. But there is not a reference in his tourist policy to this fundamental issue of hotels. He does not say whether he accepts the recommendation that no further financial assistance be given to hotels. He does not say anything about the problems of hotels in regard to their labour restrictions and the other legal restrictions. He does not say anything about the duplication which can be eliminated. I want to pay tribute to what the Hotel Board is doing, but it will only really be effective when it is the sole controlling body over hotels and when it has a better Minister. But as long as the policy is divided between those two hon. Ministers, the situation in regard to hotels will continue to be unsatisfactory. As far as internal tourism is concerned, the hon. the Minister regards it as purely a recreational and healthy social development. But what about those hotels which have designed themselves for internal tourism? When I said that hotels would disappear, did the hon. the Minister not know now many of them had actually disappeared already? The family hotel, the “Mine Host” hotel; in my own constituency, look down the beach front, the Torquay, the Majestic, and the Federal and the Carlton down West Street, the individually owned hotels have gone, the one after the other,

Whose fault is that? Who pushed them out?

They are being replaced by the vast companies, the groups, the overseas and South African combines. There is no room for the small man today. “Mine Host” is being replaced by the Railway station and not a word about that in this report…. [Time expired.]

The hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, devoted probably five-sixths of his speech to an attack on the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister will himself, of course, react to the challenges issued to him. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that it would perhaps be a good thing for him to go, for once, to the voters of Caledon to find out what they think of this hon. Minister. It is this hon. Minister’s custom, three months after a specific matter has been concluded, to make contact with his electorate again in order to find out if problems have perhaps resulted. This is something that is exceptionally praiseworthy.

The hon. member for Constantia said in his speech last Thursday—

With this the hon. member not only launched an attack on the hon. the Minister, but he also made disparaging remarks about the officials of the Department. If the hon. member is now asking what purpose this Department serves, it is clear to me that he did not examine the Department’s report carefully. In this connection I want to refer him to the two tables appearing on page 2 of the report, reflecting the activities of the branch offices of the Department during the period 1st April, 1968, to 31st March, 1970. If the Department has, according to the hon. member, done nothing, then I wonder what these figures mean. The number of personal inquiries dealt with by branch offices increased from 3 332 for the period 1st April, 1968, to 31st March, 1969, to 7 912 for the period April 1969 to March 1970—an increase of 138 per cent. At the same lime the number of telephonic inquiries dealt with over this same period increased from 1 993 to 3 256, an increase of 63 per cent. During this same period, the attendance figure, as far as the screening of films is concerned, increased from 33 491 to 63 071, an increase of 88 per cent, while the brochures distributed increased from 21 643 to 45 810. In the light of these figures, how can the hon. member say that one must wonder what purpose this Department serves? As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we very warmly want to thank the officials of this Department, which is still a young Department, for what they are doing for tourism and for our country.

I now want to express a few thoughts about local tourism. In South Africa, with its large surface area and great tourist potential, an unnoticed danger can develop in that we are going to orientate our planning towards the needs of the foreign tourists rather than towards the needs of the local tourists. I see a danger there. That is why this side of the House appreciates the Minister’s attitude towards certain bodies that made their demands. I am thinking here of tourist companies and groups that came along to the Minister with the threat that they would cancel their tours if he did not concede to their whims and fancies. The Minister, however, stuck to his guns with respect to unreasonable demands, and as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, it is our opinion that we must first of all satisfy the local tourists and that the foreign tourists must then be satisfied with the facilities according to our standards. I know that millions of dollars can be involved here, but let me mention one example—the Kruger National Park. The facilities available at present, the rondavels and huts and the present cooking facilities, are much more acceptable to us than a five-star hotel there would be. That does not fit in there. One tourist company virtually insulted the Minister by saying that he must actually be the Minister of anti-Tourism because he did not want to give that company permission to bring hundreds of thousands of tourists to this country from America after the group first wanted to build a series of hotels in the Kruger National Park. We want the Minister to continue as he is doing and first provide for the needs of our local tourists.

Keep them out.

No, we must not keep them out. Neither am I advocating that we should establish no facilities for them. I am merely saying that if the facilities that are created meet with the requirements of our local tourists, they should also be regarded as sufficient for the foreign tourists, because we have our individual nature and character, and that is how it should be. I have here extracts from two letters, one from an American and one from a German. The latter is a well- known professor in Political Science in West Germany. At present he is organizing his fifth tour to South Africa. In his letter he warns us not to try to become imitators of the European tourist industry. The American tourist says, inter alia, of our tourist and hotel staff that “he wished he could take just two of your lovely, hard-working and sensible people back with him”. That, in my opinion, speaks volumes for our officials.

I also notice from the report that the Department has at its disposal the services of a photographer, in the building up of a photo library. I am also glad to see that he is working with the regional committees. However, there is a request I should like to make to the Minister. Many of our local tourists, particularly those who want to go and discover unknown places, or visit them for the first time, are frequently not aware of those places. The easiest way for them to become aware of those places is to sec photographs of them. That is why we want to ask the hon. the Minister to employ more photographers, on a part-time basis if necessary, with the object of more rapidly developing this photo library which is of great value both to our foreign and local tourists. We appreciate the fact that the photographer is working with the regional committees. The hon. member for De Aar said last Thursday, incidentally, that there was a danger in relation to these regional committees. We want to ask the Minister to impress upon regional committees that they must see themselves as part of the broad structure, that they must realize that every region is a part of the whole and that the national policy is also applicable to the regions. Consequently any development in a region must be beneficial to the country as a whole. Every region must take note of the development pattern of the country as a whole, and must be realistic and purposeful. The link between the planning authority and the inhabitants is very important and the regional committees must bear this in mind. Particularly with respect to the platteland they have a task in every sphere, and perhaps, as far as the platteland is concerned, a bigger task in the cultural, spiritual and the educational fields than in the economic field.

Sir, I want to conclude with a word of thanks to the wine farmers of the Boland for the establishment of the wine route. We want to ask the hon. the Minister to take the lead here in approaching various branches of farming in South Africa for the establishment of similar routes. I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister gives consideration to farmers whose farms are traversed by such a route being allowed, if they comply with minimum requirements, to sell, for example, meat and other products, which are produced on the farm, to tourists, particularly local tourists. I realize that one is venturing on dangerous ground here, but I believe that if the Minister works through the correct channels, this could well be arranged.

A mealie route where one can buy putu.

Sir, we want to tell the hon. the Minister that we would like to preserve this lovely country that belongs to us; it does not matter what the foreign tourist demands of us. If something is good enough for us, they must also put up with it.

The hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, took it upon himself to accuse the hon. member for Constantia of what was supposedly an attack on the officials when the hon. member for Constantia was referring to this report. Sir, surely the Department of Tourism is, after all, a Government Department; surely it is, after all, a part of the Public Service. Therefore the people can judge it in the light of the service the Department furnishes, in the opinion of the people, and therefore I believe that the hon. member for Constantia acted quite rightly and justly in this connection. The Minister is responsible for the Department. The hon. member for Constantia referred particularly to the holding of national tourism conferences in South Africa and spoke of the absence of such congresses. The staff of the Department of Tourism are particularly suited to developing their knowledge in connection with tourism, and one way in which they can share it, and in which they can be of service to private undertakings in South Africa, and to the people as such, is specifically by arranging congresses about tourism. This was the specific case to which the hon. member for Constantia was referring when he said that he looked in vain in this report for any reference to such congresses. Sir, I am a newcomer to this House, and I do not know to what extent we can discuss this report, but since so much has already been quoted from it, I am going to be so bold as to ask the hon. the Minister about something that was specifically recommended by the Economic Advisory Council of the hon. the Prime Minister, i.e. that regular national tourist congresses should be arranged. Let us hear from the hon. the Minister where he stands in respect of that aspect of his policy, because such congresses could furnish the people of South Africa with a service, as well as furnishing a service to those involved in tourism. At such congresses ideas can be exchanged and private persons can then benefit from the knowledge which the staff of the Department of Tourism have gained from their experience.

Sir, there is some difficulty with the policy of the hon. the Minister. In the debate last Thursday one of the hon. the Minister’s initial arguments was the following; “Why are you complaining? The number of tourists has increased.” At that stage I believed that numbers were the criterion of progress, but now we have obtained the report and heard the Minister’s policy, and now we must learn that numbers do not matter.

What about the 70 000 selective immigrants?

We have the numbers here. The policy is that we actually want the type of tourist who has money to spend here. Last Thursday the hon. the Minister said by implication that tourists should, in fact, stay in good hotels, and I should like to know where the hon. the Minister stands. Is he really an advocate of the five-star hotel in South Africa?

Oh, nonsense!

Where are the people going to stay? If he advocates five- star hotels in South Africa, where your most selective tourist, and the person who can spend the most money in the country, can stay, I want to ask the Minister if we are then going to have a tourist explosion in South Africa as soon as we have sufficient five-star hotels? He said very clearly that we must not bring a person to South Africa and let him stay here in a place where he is dissatisfied with the service, because such a person is then dissatisfied and only means damaging and detrimental influences for one overseas. I would now like to ask the hon. the Minister what he is doing to meet the hotels, as such, halfway in their solitary struggle with the Government today in respect of certain problems they have. They specifically have problems with respect to the service they can supply, and problems with respect to non-White servants which they have to employ and the circumstances involved in that. Sir, I want to tell you that it is not only the five-star hotels that are finding it difficult and that have complaints in this connection, but also the ordinary two, three and four-star hotels, I want to mention a practical example here. Recently I stayed the night in Port Elizabeth, and I wanted to return to Cape Town on the 9 a.m. flight. When I got up at 7 a.m. I found that there would be no breakfast before 8 o’clock. I was not altogether upset about that, but I did realize, of course, that if one was leaving on the 8 a.m. flight from Port Elizabeth, one could not have breakfast. While I was there, there were no less than 15 to 20 tourists who wanted to leave on the 8.10 flight to Durban, and they were amazed when they discovered that they could not get breakfast before 8 o’clock. There I saw the tremendous contrast between the effective service of the S.A. Airways, which made its own arrangements for the passenger bus to call at the hotel to pick the people up, not forcing them to go to the terminal. I saw the consternation on the face of the busdriver when he found out that these people could only have breakfast after 8 o’clock. I then found out what the problem was, and the problem involved the employment of non-White servants in hotels and everything which that involves. The hon. the Minister cannot sit here and try to ignore it, because it is very important if he wants to entice those selective tourists to South Africa.

How many stars did that hotel have?

It was a two-star or a three-star hotel. You must now decide where you want them, at the two or three- star hotels, or at the five-star hotels.

But the hon. member for Pretoria District reproaches us so strongly because we speak of the non-White tourist, but does he not realize that we are living in an outwardly-orientated era? We are actually sailing thus in our small ship of dialogue to never-never land across the plains of Africa. In that respect, if there is an outward movement, there is also going to be an inward traffic, and it is in this respect that it is of great importance for the hon. the Minister to tell us clearly where the non-White tourist stands.

You are living in a dream world.

It does not help to try and hide behind certain aspects such as the Group Areas Act. After all, you know what is happening in practice. You surely know that if a person does not stay in a place for longer than 90 days he does not occupy it. It does not help us to try to hide behind all sorts of excuses such as the fact that you cannot go and sit in a restaurant and eat, because then you are occupying a place. A person can go and stay at a hotel without it being necessary for him to take meals in restaurants. No, Sir, what is the practice today? That is what the Minister must tell us clearly. Practically it has now become possible for any hotel to be multiracial if the Police keep their eyes closed. In Notice No. 58 of the proposed regulation issued on 29th January, it is stated in very forceful terms that no accommodation, refreshments or meals may be supplied to any non-Whites for use within a licensed building. That is to say, in South Africa it is not possible in practice to accommodate a non-White in a White hotel. In practice we have seen that it is, in fact, possible. I believe that even in Waterberg, where the verkramptes are fighting each other, they would like to know precisely what the hon. Minister’s policy is. I know that the hon. the Minister is in a difficult position, but he could contribute a great deal towards explaining the position to us. If the hon. the Minister wants to promote tourism—and this must surely be his purpose—this must be made clear to us and he must be able to say what the Government’s object is and what opportunities they want to create in connection with tourism. Tourism is surely an inexhaustible industry for a country. Tourism is the exploitation of a natural resource, which is inexhaustible, i.e. the natural beauty of a country. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Durban Central asked the hon. the Minister a few questions here in connection with accommodation in hotels which, I think, the Minister himself will reply to. For the rest, the hon. member also referred to the manpower shortage with respect to service in hotels it surprises me that the hon. member, who comes from Durban himself, apparently does not know that at this stage very positive efforts are being made, inter alia, to train waiters in order to meet the need for them. A few years ago courses were introduced at the M. L. Sultan Advanced Technical College for the training of waiters. At present there is actually a much greater demand for waiters than the college can provide. The fact remains that trained persons are sent from the college to hotels. I see that the hon. member for Durban Point is sitting watching me. While he is doing so, I just want to say that i listened very attentively to the entire debate. Except for the fact that there was, here and there, a glimmer of something in connection with tourism, the debate consisted further of personal attacks on the hon. the Minister. I refer particularly to the conduct of two hon. members in that connection. This was not only destructive criticism but also personal attacks and snide remarks about the hon. the Minister. I find it very regrettable that we have identified the relevant members who attacked the Minister as the English language members of this House. But we leave the matter at that.

I have also had the Department of Tourism’s report for perusal. I read the report very thoroughly and found it very interesting and informative. I want to express the hope that, as a further development, a report of that kind will be tabled every year so that we can keep abreast of the progress the Department is making in connection with various aspects and projects that are being undertaken.

I also want to refer to the fine report we received from the Board of Control of the South African Tourist Corporation, of which the Secretary of the Department of Tourism is chairman. Like the Department’s report, this is also a very informative one. The report is not only attractive, but also colourful. We know, of course, that the Corporation is carrying out a very big task in connection with the propagating of tourism, particularly overseas, and that they are are succeeding in that task. Despite the criticism we have heard from the Opposition, I would nevertheless like to express appreciation for the realistic and positive approach of the Department to the various aspects and facets also reflected in this annual report to which I referred. A matter which I also read about with interest, and a matter which has been raised previously in debates, is specifically concerned with the course in tourism to which reference was also made in this debate. A few days ago, in answer to a question that was asked in connection with the training, and in connection with how many people were taking that course, the hon. the Minister replied that at the Pretoria College for Advanced Technical Education five first-year pupils and two second-year pupils were taking the diploma course. From what I have heard, the two persons taking the second-year course are officials of the Department. I do not know whether there are students elsewhere who are taking this course. My question to the hon. the Minister is whether, at this stage, it looks as if that course has been a success. I am not speaking of the course as such, its content, because as far as I can judge it is a very interesting course. If I were a person who had just completed the matriculation examination I would have placed this field of study very high on my list of preferences. If the present meager interest not because of the fact that it is not generally known to matriculants that they can take such a course? I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister and the Department whether it would not be a good thing to make this course known by way of the departments of education, or else by way of a circular to school principals. Every high school has a vocational guidance officer, and this way the course would then come to the attention of matriculants.

Secondly, I want to ask whether it is not possible for bursaries to be made available, and if this cannot be done by the Department as such, then it can surely be done by bodies who can benefit from it. These bursaries would stimulate interest in this vocational field. The bursaries must not be repayable in cash, but in service, an arrangement we already encounter in the various departments. I think that it is very necessary for people to be trained for this profession. Guides must be trained. When one visits countries abroad one finds a person who acts as a guide and who really gives illuminating information in connection with various matters. I do not know whether our guides have already reached that standard. It is very necessary for tourist groups visiting our country to be served by trained guides, and they must be people having well-considered background knowledge, people who can not only present tourist attractions, but also speak about historic places. In this connection I should like to agree with the hon. member for East London City. He said that people coming here should also have a knowledge of the multi-national composition of our country and of the problems we are faced with here, and how we are trying to combat those problems. I agree with him that these people must convey South Africa’s image. They could be very good ambassadors for us. That is why it is also necessary for guides here to be trained people who can present things in our country in such a way to those visitors that those visitors will return to their homes as real ambassadors for South Africa.

It is, of course, important that there be better and greater co-ordination between all the bodies with interests in tourism, particularly as far as local tourism is concerned. We know that the Department of Tourism has its regional and branch offices, but in addition to that we also know that the South African Railways has a tourist division and that, inter alia, they furnish tourists with bus tours. We know that by means of its films, for example. State Information gives a big stimulus to tourism. Where State Information shows films overseas, interest is stimulated.

Then there is the large number of travel agencies. We know that the travel agencies are mainly intent on doing business. Those bodies now apparently function independently. We also realize, in addition, that the provincial administrations do a great deal in connection with local tourism. In this connection I have in mind the Transvaal Board for Public Resorts. I do not know that much about the other provinces, but in the Transvaal there is the Board for Public Resorts that does a lot for the development of various local holiday resorts. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Koedoespoort misunderstood the complaint of the hon. member for Durban Central when he spoke about the type of service, I think he must have misunderstood it on purpose, because there was really no possible excuse for misunderstanding the point made by the hon. member for Durban Central. His point was not that the waiters were not properly trained. We know that there are training facilities. We think very good development is taking place in this regard.

He said we do not have the people.

Yes, the whole point is that the servants could not get to the hotel in time to serve breakfast before eight o'clock Because of Government policy the servants cannot stay on the premises of the hotel. They cannot be housed near the hotels. Therefore, they cannot give proper service. This is a very serious criticism. The hon. member for Koedoespoort will know that one merely has to talk to hoteliers and they will tell one that their main difficulty is the staff problem. Their problem is the availability of Bantu staff. They are not allowed to house Bantu staff on their premises.

The hon. the Minister of Tourism attacked the United Party for bringing into this debate the recommendations of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council in the manner in which it was done. He said he would not have minded had we used the recommendations to base a policy statement of our own. That was the difficulty he found with us. Well, I am going to use those recommendations for a policy statement I want to mate, I want to request the hon. the Minister to apply this policy. Firstly, I want to deal with the recommendations made in paragraphs 14 and 15 on page 6 of the report. If the hon. the Minister looks at paragraphs 14 and 15, he will see that it is recommended that the Bantu Investment Corporation, the Xhosa Development Corporation, the South African Railways and other instances, as they put it, should give attention to developing tourism in the Bantu reserves. This is a most important recommendation. I submit that this side of tourism is being neglected by the Government.

There are plenty of opportunities for development of tourism in the Bantu areas. As the hon. member for Etosha poinetd out the other day, tourists from overseas come here not to see our cities, but to see nature. They want to see nature reserves and the Bantu areas. I just want to remind the hon. member for Pretoria District when he complains about the Kruger Park being overcrowded, that the United Party had provided for another reserve, but the first thing the Nationalist Party did when it came into power, was to repeal the Act regarding the Dongola reserve. Now they realize that thy should have kept their reserve, because it would have been an added attraction for tourists. Besides the life in the reserves being interesting to foreigners, we also have some of the best scenery in the country in those areas. One only has to go down to the Wild Coast in the Transkei to see what beautiful scenery these areas can offer.

Is that where you grew up?

No, that is not where I grew up. I grew up in the district of Humansdorp. I am talking about the Transkei now where I live.

*The Wild Coast, I submit, is the best coastline in the country for tourists and holiday makers. We have fine beaches. The hon. the Minister of Health shakes his head. I wonder whether he has ever been there. No, he has not been there. I suggest that he should come and see for himself that we have beaches there which are unequalled in this country. There we have rivers which can be used for fishing purposes and for water sports. The fishing there is very good. But this whole coastline is being neglected. What is the first step that will have to be taken to develop tourism in the Bantu areas as suggested by this commission? They mention what is necessary. In paragraph 33 of their report they recommend that the Provincial Administration and the National Transport Commission should give attention to the building of better roads and to the building of new roads which will encompass the tourist areas of the country. I would like to ask this hon. Minister in particular to use his influence with the Minister of Transport and the Deputy Minister of Transport- I do not know whether he has an influence—to do something about the roads to the coast in the Transkei. The hon. the Minister of Tourism, who is in charge of this Vote, received a deputation from Port St. Johns on this very issue. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport also received this deputation, but while the Minister of Tourism was sympathetic, I cannot say the same for the Deputy Minister of Transport. They received a very unsatisfactory reply from him as to what could be done. I would like to remind the Committee that in terms of the Transkei Constitution Act, the roads along the coast are national roads. Nothing is being done to have those roads built. Last year an amount of R900 000, was set aside on the Estimates for maintenance and construction of roads. R210 000 was specially set aside for the construction of new roads. However, this year, R990 000 is set aside altogether, but only for maintenance and nothing is specially set aside for the construcion of roads. When I put a question to the hon. the Minister just recently and asked him what they were doing about the construction of that road, which they are bound to do, the reply was that it depended on how much money would be set aside by the Treasury for this purpose. He gave us no hope whatsoever of ever tackling this road. The hon. the Minister of Tourism will know that tourists do not want to travel on dirt roads. They want tarred roads, and quite rightly so. I want to appeal to him again to use his influence, if any, with the Minister of Transport so that that road can be built.

What is the next thing they want? They want good hotels. The hon. the Minister may know that there is a regular Railway tourist bus which travels from Cape Town to Umtata, from Umtata to Port St. Johns and from Port St. Johns to the Natal coast. However, the hotels on that route, the Flagstaff and Bizana hotels, have been bought by the Xhosa Development Corporation and they are reserved for Africans only. There are no services for White tourists on that road. This is a most serious matter, because people get stuck at times. They may get stuck because they have trouble with their motors. If they go to Kokstad, they will find that the Mount Ayliff Hotel has also been taken over by the Xhosa Development Corporation. Often tourists are stuck there because of mist and because of snow, but there is no place where they can stay over. There is no place where they can go, because the White traders in the villages are also leaving the vicinity. The hon. the Minister must give his attention to the fact that no provision is made for tourists on long stretches of that road. People are prepared to supply accommodation, and I therefore submit that the hon. the Minister should refer this to the Department of Bantu Administration so that they can see what can he done about it. As the hon. the Minister knows, the hotels in the Transkei do not fall under the Liquor Act.

They did not want to fall under that Act.

Well, really I do not think that we have offered it to them. The hotels on the main road would like the privileges which go with registration. They are not able to register as hotels, and therefore they cannot get any of the financial benefits which go with registration. This is where the Minister can help, namely, by providing that the hotels in the Transkei on the national road—I am not talking about those off the national road—will be able to get the advantages which other hotels get when they are registered. It is not their fault that they are not registered; they are not able to register.

The hotels along the coast are on long lease, but they have no liquor privileges and they are bound by restrictive regulations as to the size and the development that can take place there. That coastline should be opened up. The hotels along that coastline should be made decent hotels. Now the Government is talking about using White capital in the reserves on an agency basis. Here I submit is a good opportunity for them to use the agency basis for establishing decent hotels which will attract tourists. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in this debate about the tourism Vote we have now heard a wide diversity of views. Neither could the hon. member for Durban Point resist making his customary attack on the hon. the Minister. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that it is really not necessary to do what he did here this afternoon. There is now an altogether too general tendency—and that applies to certain newspapers in the hon. member’s locality as well—to conduct a personal vendetta against the hon. the Minister of Tourism.

Why did he distort my Hansard?

The hon. member says that the hon. the Minister distorted his Hansard. I think that this is an un-parliamentary expression he is using here. [Interjections.] Is he allowed to say it?

Order! The hon. member may continue.

The hon. member for Durban Point was not here when the hon. the Minister spoke last week. The Minister did not imply that he was quoting from Hansard. I have his speech here before me. He said—

But if the hon. member had been here, he would have been able to appreciate that the hon. the Minister did not quote from Hansard or imply that he was quoting. He merely made a statement. The hon. member must now listen to me carefully. He merely made a statement, and then the hon. member got hold of the Hansard report in which this sentence, supposedly a quotation, appears. But that is not the fault of the hon. the Minister. It was said in passing, “the hon. member said so”. Now he comes along and puts words in the Minister’s mouth by saying that he distorted it.

But the words are also wrong.

Let us not argue about that now. But are these words, which the hon. member used this afternoon, correct? He said that the policy view which the hon. the Minister presented here this afternoon about tourism in reality amounts to the fact that the Minister is saying to certain people: “You are on the unwanted list.”

That’s right!

Sir, just look at what is being done by the man who, with a great flourish, reproaches the hon. the Minister for supposedly having done him an injustice. Does the hon. member feel proud of the fact that he gives such an interpretation to a statement that does not bear this implication at all? Must one now always come up with this kind of wilfulness when one is speaking about an interesting Vote such as this, which also affects our national economy? That is why I cannot but come to the conclusion that, with a few exceptions, members of the Opposition side scratched around in the Tourism Vote like a chicken and did not actually know what they were looking for.

In the course of his speech the hon. member for East London City contradicted himself a few times. Then he bemoaned the fact that too little money is being given to the South African Tourist Corporation. The next moment he says that they are not doing enough to promote our tourist potential. Just a little while later he says that they are doing wonderful work. Then the hon. member for East London City compares us with “a small country like Kenya”, as he expressed it, which had a 12 per cent increase in its tourists. The hon. member does not even understand that in our case there was an 18 per cent increase in the past year. But what the hon. member neglected to mention is that of the 293 000 tourists that Kenya drew last year, about 53 000 came from other Africa states on the very borders of Kenya. The hon. member reproached us for the fact that we obtain too many people from the countries of Africa, for example from Rhodesia. But he does not go as far as to analyse the situation in Kenya.

But Kenya at least still got 200 000 from European countries many more than we did.

Did the hon. member make an analysis of where Kenya’s tourists came from? 37 000 came from Tanzania, right on its doorstep, therefore; 13 000 came from Uganda, etc., 15 000 came from West Germany and 99 000, the overall majority, from the United Kingdom. If the hon. member had gone into the matter even more deeply he would have found that many of those, who came to Kenya from the United Kingdom and West Germany, were people with commercial interests in Kenya who therefore did not primarily go there as tourists. The hon. member is therefore not entitled to paint a murky picture of our tourist situation by comparing it with that of another country when he does not know the exact position.

Any right-thinking person can agree with the statement the hon. the Minister made this afternoon, because any right-thinking person would, as far as tourism is concerned, not expect an explosion as the hon. member for Durban Central apparently does. That is the expression he used. This puts me in mind of how hon. members opposite have recently tried to imply that tourism supposedly has such potential that it can even take the place of the gold-mining industry. Such talks is surely unrealistic. In order to accommodate tourists we must have the necessary facilities, and those facilities cannot he created overnight. There must, consequently be a correlation between our ability to accommodate the people and our endeavours to draw tourists. Surely that is only sound common sense. That is why I simply cannot understand how hon. members opposite can come and complain about our tourist industry in the light of the fact that last year we had a growth of 18 per cent. In the past a comparison has been made between South Africa and certain European countries that are well-known for the numbers of tourists they draw and whose economy is virtually dependent on tourism.

But as far as we are concerned, this is surely not the case, although we also want to draw tourists. Because we are situated at a great distance from the countries from which we would like to draw tourists, we specifically want to draw those tourists who can come and spend money in South Africa. Those who cannot do so would not, in any case, take the trouble to come all that distance. It would therefore not help this Department to do what some agencies want to do, i.e. to try to bring a mass of tourists to this country with the aid of a State subsidy without us being able to accommodate them here. Numbers are important, as evidenced by the fact that last year we had a growth rate of 18 per cent. However, emphasis must not primarily fall on numbers, but on the quality of those who come. That is the basic difference between the approach of the Government and that of the Opposition. The Opposition has no clear picture of what the tourist industry must mean to South Africa, how we must handle it and what prospects there are for us in this field.

In the hon. the Minister’s policy statement reference is also made to local tourism — a very important aspect. We surely cannot make the promotion of foreign tourism so explosive that we thereby adversely affect our local tourists. South Africa is a big country and therefore the South African must also travel far if he wants to have a holiday. Therefore we must also create the necessary facilities for him, as for those from our neighbouring states. The hon. member for East London City specifically said that our tourists chiefly come from our neighbouring states, for example Rhodesia. But what is wrong with the people of Rhodesia?

I only said that the majority came from there.

But what is wrong with that? If more want to come, so much the better. Then we, as neighbours, learn to understand each other. [Time expired.]

In the course of the Minister’s address to the House he wondered why we on this side of the House laughed at the reference in the department’s report to the clothing of caddies. I reacted by saying that we were amazed that notice was being directed to this peculiar item; we wondered what the reason for it was. To me this reference is amazing. I am informed by reliable authority, and have seen it myself, that the thousands of tourists from abroad are amazed at the dress of the stevedores they see on the various quays and the ragged condition in which they appear. There are many things of that nature which must immediately strike a tourist to this country. Therefore, why the hon. the Minister lauds the fact that the department has drawn attention to the dress of caddies, is something which amazes not only me, but also the entire tourist world, if that is one of the pegs on which he hinges his policy.

It is all very well for the hon. member- for Stellenbosch to ciriticize the hon. member for Durban Point and to ask him for his motive. Is he, however, aware of the fact that the hon. the Minister made the following statement in this House in the absence of the hon. member for Durban Point? —

The Minister then went on to refer to the statement that it was going to be the biggest failure, etc. Mr. Chairman, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The hon. member for Durban Point emphatically denied having said something he did not say, something which he was alleged to have said. The hon. member ought therefore not to query the motive of the hon. member; he should query the motive of the hon. the Minister who thought he may score a debating point in the absence of the hon. member for Durban Point, who was ill. That is a much more interesting motive to consider.

I think the Minister is completely confused, judging from the policy he wishes to establish for this department. On the one hand he boasts about the increase in numbers while, on the other hand, he delivers an anachronistic policy of selective tourism. Does he realize that during last year 153 000 000 people toured the world and that that involved an expenditure in foreign exchange of eleven billion rand? Does he realize that the tourist trade predicts that with the advent of the Jumbo Jet the figure in ten years’ time will be one billion tourists? Does he realize that it is expected that within the next four or five years the tourist trade over the world will increase by at least 25 per cent to 30 per cent and then escalate to this enormous figure that I have mentioned? And yet, Sir, he talks about selective tourism when the total number of tourists from outside Africa to the Republic was only 104 000, while 132 000 came from our neighbour, Rhodesia, and a number from Mozambique. Sir, visitors from these states cannot really be regarded as tourists, because these states are our neighbours, and these people enter South Africa for all sorts of reasons, just as we enter their countries for all sorts of reasons.

But let me draw attention to what is happening in Rhodesia, a country with a beleaguered, besieged economy. Here we have a country which in 1969 was able to tell us that tourists had spent a record 23,4 million dollars in Rhodesia last year and that this was more than double the total receipts from tourism in 1966, the year after U.D.I. was introduced. They go on to say that their total number of tourists increased to 320 000 odd, which was a further record. Sir, Rhodesia is a small unprepared country with a beleaguered economy, a country which bears no comparison with the Republic from a financial point of view; yet they have not tried to set a brake on tourism because of a lack of amenities. The hon. member for Stellenbosch, in talking about this policy of selective tourism, also said that we must prepare ourselves for the advent of tourists and that we cannot have tourists on a large scale because we have not got the necessary facilities. Sir, that is something to which the hon. the Minister and the Government should have awakened years ago. They are constantly saying to us, “Look what the Nationalist Party has done since 1948.” They have not done a great deal in tourism. In the report of Satour for the year ended 31st March, 1970, we read the following extraordinary statement—

Here for the first time we find that they are taking a forward, intelligent step to put tourism on a proper basis.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has a certain duty and that is to ensure that this particular industry is progressive in all that it does and that it grows into a meaningful industry. Let me say further that if the hon. the Minister thinks that he is going to get foreign exchange of any value under his policy of selective tourism, a policy in terms of which he only takes those who he feels are able to spend a good deal in this country, he is going to fall very much behind in the years to come. Let me tell him that Spain, which is economically a comparatively poor country when compared with South Africa, had 21,6 million tourists in 1969 and that tourism is one of the most important sources of foreign exchange to Spain, Does he realize, Sir, that one of the smallest and newest countries in the world, Israel, regards tourism as its greatest earner of foreign exchange? Israel is a small country with a very small population and with an economy which is under even greater pressure than some of the beleaguered economies in the world. What does the hon. the Minister do? He comes along with a report which accepts about 1 per cent of what is recommended by the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, and he tells us something which we all know. Let us see what the world says about tourism; what the thinking people in countries which are concerned with tourism say about it. They say this, and I am quoting from a newspaper—

Other newspapers contain similar reports. David Lewis, a man who has played a very big part in the hotel industry, says—

Then there is the Johannesburg Publicity Association which is also an organization that is concerned with tourism in the biggest city in the Republic. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think I should deal at the outset with the speech of the hon. member for Jeppes who has criticized the Government because it thinks in terms of selective tourism. He wants the doors opened up.

That is half the issue.

The hon. member wants this country opened up to tourists. Sir, the hon. member must realize that other people have other opinions. His opinion is not supported, for example, by the writer Stephen Mulholland of the Sunday Times, and that man can never be accused of being a supporter of mine nor of being a Nationalist. The Sunday Times is not a newspaper which supports me personally. Let me read out what this man had to say after he had been overseas. When I have quoted this, I should like to hear whether there is anybody in this House who supports the opinion of the hon. member for Jeppes, because I for one will not have anything to do with the hon. member’s policy. Amongst other things, this is what Stephen Mulholland says—

He is talking about a country whose name [ will not mention—

Who recommended that?

Let me go on. The non. member may smile I go on quoting—

I think you are talking nonsense.

Let me go on quoting—

Now I want to ask hon. members of this House whether we are going to allow the whole character of our country to be altered by the inflow of tourists that the hon. member for Jeppes says we should allow in this country.

May I ask a question?

No. The hon. member can listen to me. I want to come to the hon. member for Durban Point. He says we only want millionaires to come here because we are selective. What absolute nonsense! Another member, the hon. member for Durban Central, said I am only interested in the five-star hotels; that is my big interest. It is such nonsense. Sir. I want to quote figures to show hon. members what the position is. There are six five-star hotels of the 1 218 hotels which have been graded by the Hotel Board. There are six five-star hotels. In percentage it is 0,5 per cent of the hotels in this country. There are seven four-star hotels, 0,5 per cent of the hotels in this country. There are 57 three-star hotels, or 4.9 per cent of the hotels in this country.

Are you reading that out to demonstrate that they cannot accommodate them?

I am giving facts to the hon. member. I will come to that hon. member. Just keep quiet. There are 207 two-star hotels, or 17 per cent of the hotels, and of the one-star hotels there are 941 or 77,1 per cent. The one- and two-star hotels are 94 per cent of the hotels in South Africa.

May I ask a question?

No, you cannot. Now I want to come back to the hon. member for Durban Point. He said that the bit; hotels, the combine hotels, were swallowing up all the private hotels. I called for the figures. Of the 1 218 hotels, 45 are combine hotels. He asked where was the old host who used to run the hotels and he said the only hotels are these combine hotels; 45 of those hotels belong to combines. The other hotels are really in the category of what you might call personal hotels. I think the figure they gave me was that something like 93 per cent of the hotels were what you might call personally handled hotels. So what nonsense is this that we get from the opposite side of the House? You see, Sir, I know the hon. member.

If there are so many one- and two-star hotels, why do you want the rich people to come?

I said “selective”; I never said rich people. I never said millionaires. But I am not going to have what you might call the “trippers” rushing into this country and overwhelming this country. [Interjections.] Let me tell the hon. member for Jeppes this. He spoke about Spain and said they had 21 million tourists, and now the figure has increased to 23 million. But does he know what the experience of Spain is? The number of tourists increased and you would expect the revenue to increase, but it went lower. You see, these are things that one has to handle intelligently. One has to try to appreciate the situation and try to obtain the best results for South Africa. The hon. member says we should let them come into this country. I can tell him that the worst advertisement a country can have as far as tourism is concerned is when a man cannot get accommodation and he cannot get service, and what the hon. member for Durban Central said, namely he found he could not get breakfast. I would ask the hon. member for Durban Central whether he put in a complaint to the Hotel Board? That is why the Hotel Boards is there. That is what it was established for. Did he make any positive attempt to complain to the Hotel Board? No, he does not do that. He just tries to make a little cheap capital out of it here. That is all. And I want to say this to the hon. member. I heard him talk about the non-Whites, and he said something about the Waterberg by-election. He said the people in Waterberg would want to know. Of course, it is the same old game. He wants to fight the Waterberg by-election on the tourist issue and exploit it as much as he can for that purpose. They have not even a candidate there, and they are not going to put up a candidate, but they want to give the information to the H.N.P. so that they can use it in the election. That is all. They must not think that I regard their complaints as objective criticism. I know them and I know the whole purpose of their approach. I will not say that about the hon. member for Constantia. I gave him credit immediately for looking at the subject conscientiously and trying to study it. But I know the hon. member for Durban Central, and I know the hon. member for Durban Point. I know what their object is. They leave me completely cold.

Just tell us what your policy is.

What is your policy?

Let me come to another point. The hon. member for Jeppes and the hon. member for Durban Point talked about why did I not answer this recommendation and why did I not answer that recommendation. I think the hon. member for Jeppes referred to Recommendation No. 36 or something. Let me read this to him. I think this is in connection with Recommendation 12—

Are you reading from the confidential report or from the other one?

I am reading from the recommendations. You see, Sir, the hon. members now find themselves in trouble and they will do anything to get out of it. I say to the hon. members this is the way this Government intends to behave and to act. The Government has accepted the idea of an advisory tourist body and it will submit these recommendations from the economic adviser to them and it will consider other matters like the matters which the hon. member for Transkei has raised with me on a number of occasions. I am not unsympathetic. I have been to the Transkei and to the Drakensberg. I think they have great potential, but the trouble with the Transkei was that the Transkei would not come under the Hotel Board. The hon. member actually said so to me—I do not want to fait out with the hon. member for Transkei, but I think, if I am correct, the hon. member at some stage or other in this House said that the hotels in the Transkei did not want to come under the Hotel Board. But the only avenue of assistance is if you are registered with the Hotel Board. It is no good saying that you want to register with the Hotel Board but you do not want to apply their minimum standards! all you want is loan money.

But they cannot comply with the standards. They are being, bought out one by one. I was referring to the hotels on the national road.

What I am trying to point out is the problem. I say I would like to see far more amenities in South Africa. I would like to see far better accommodation, and I am quite prepared to tackle these problems as they come along. But I was surprised that the Transkei did not want to come under the Hotel Board.

Those small hotels in the villages obviously do not want to.

Yes, but what about the other hotels on the coast? They also did not want to come in.

Of course, they belong to one association.

It is all right saying that the Minister is not handling it properly and he is not doing this or that. All I can say to the House is that every year progressively we get more and more tourists of a selective type. We do not open our doors to the thousands of tourists that the hon. member for Jeppes says are available to come to South Africa.

Read my Hansard.

I listened to the hon. member. If ever an hon. member greed to make an evasive speech, it was the hon. member for Jeppes. I listened to him carefully. I am interested in the fact that tourists come to this country, whether he likes it or not, on golf tours, for example. They come in a group on a golf tour, and they go from one golf course to another golf course. They come in by plane and they stay at the best hotels. They are men with money and they go and play golf. Everybody with money may play golf; I do not. That is the situation. Then I am asked if there is nothing I can do to improve the position with regard to caddies. Now the hon. member reproaches me with regard to the stevedores. That does not fall under the Department of Tourism however. If the hon. member wants to, he can speak about that with my hon. colleague. The whole object is, of course, to draw a red herring across the course of this debate in an attempt to overcome the case which has been made, that this department is drawing an increasing number of tourists to this country, despite anything they may say about me. I would rather listen to hon. members such as the hon. member for Stellenbosch and the hon. member for Pretoria District, because they offer objective advice and not political advice.

What about my objection?

I said that I understood the position and accepted your objection. I did not try to avoid it.

I am talking about the coastal areas.

I realize that. Unfortunately, as the hon. member knows, my hands are tied because of decisions previously made by the hoteliers in that area.

I am talking about the hotels on the coast, which do not …

If the hon. member puts his case, I will be quite happy to put it to the Hotel Board. If it is possible legally to register them, they will be registered. But they must conform to certain standards. It is the whole purpose of the Hotels Board, to see whether they do conform to those standards.

With regard to the hon. member for Jeppes, I read out what this says about recommendations Nos. 13 to 52. He does not even seem to know that, although it has been printed here in dark letters.

You are putting words into my mouth which I have never said.

Did the hon. member not say that I handled only a small percentage of the recommendations made?

I said that your policy statement is an anachronism. There is hardly anything of any consequence in this report.

No, that is not the point. The point is that the Economic Council said that recommendations 13 to 52 should be submitted to an advisory tourist committee. I did not say that. They did and I followed their advice. I discussed what recommendations 1 to 12 suggested in the report. Sir, all I want to say to the hon. members is that they can make their fuss, shout and continue with their discrediting and belittling as long as they like, but we on this side of the House will go forward and study the tourist problems properly without any of the nonsense we have heard this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the halfhour? In the time available to me it will not be possible to discuss the good things that have been done in the department during this year, nor will it be possible to discuss the annual report and the activities reported therein. This year has indeed been dominated by the further slide by South Africa out of international sport. It has been dominated by the Nationalist Party’s new sports policy, which in turn has been overshadowed by the much finer United Party sport policy. Lastly, it has been dominated by the blunders and the gaffes made by the hon. the Minister of Sport. I sincerely hope that the hon. Minister of Sport will not tell me that I made that statement and others I will still make because he is an English-speaking South African. I will regard that as no answer whatsoever to what I will say. He was a fine sportsman in his day and he played the game then. It is just that he is such an incompetent Minister that I am forced to criticize him.

It should be realized that in many fields of general policy South Africa pays a very high price for general Government race relations policy. It is often not realized that we are paying this price. In the case of sport we can see day by day and year by year the price we are paying for this Government and its sports policy. We can see the high price we are paying to maintain the hon. the Minister of Sport in his position.

Politics, politics!

It is interesting, what the Chief Whip said just now, because I want to get to that very point. Today I want to review shortly our slide out of international sport, to consider the Government’s and the hon. the Minister’s role and guilt in this matter, and to see what can be done. I want to name the main sports we are out of: Soccer in 1961, amateur boxing in 1968, tennis in 1970, weight lifting in 1969, cycling in 1970, athletics where we were refused participation in the Tokyo Olympic Games in 1966 and Mexico in 1970 and the suspension of our recognition by the I.O.C. in 1970. This suspension from the I.O.C. is a most serious aspect, because it affects 26 sports. I believe it is because we are being forced out of these 26 sports one after another that the Government has had to do something about it. Fortunately we are still in certain sports, like rugby although we have lost an All Black tour and the tour of Britain was spoilt. We are still in cricket although we have lost two tours. We are also still in golf and hockey where we can compete virtually without impediment. I stress that this shows that there is no question that it is necessary to have mixing at all levels in order to remain in international sport. Indeed, the new policy of the hon. the Prime Minister shows this.

Do you think your policy will achieve that?

If I had more time, I would answer the many interjections. I concede that there were certain difficulties. The grand policy of the Nationalist Party was disapproved of abroad, sometimes because it was understood and sometimes because it was not understood. South Africa, however, needed all the possible skill and all the possible right policies and the handling thereof to stay in international sport. We needed above all to strengthen the hands of our friends. We had many friends and we still have friends in international sport. In general, the world wished of us that teams should be chosen on merit. I say “in general”, because in fact each sport is treated quite separately, as those I have indicated show. There was no need to have mixed sport at all levels. It is not required of us now. But the Government has failed us in coping with this difficult situation.

I now want to look at the reasons for our slide out of international sport. Hon. members opposite, as they so often do, say that I am talking politics. Let me say that they and the hon. the Minister have spent a lot of time saying that politics should be kept out of sport. The hon. the Prime Minister is also very fond of it. But I say that South Africa is primarily out of international sport because this Government brings politics in at every turn. I will show this. The Government has wrenched sport from the hands of the sports administrators, where it belongs. They have denied to the sports administrators for a long time now the right to arrange their matches with foreign countries. They have insisted that their ideas regarding the ordering of affairs between the races inside South Africa He applied to much of South Africa’s international sport. In short, they insisted that Nationalist internal dogma be applied to our international sport. Let us look at the Rake’s progress of this Government and with it, our sport. Originally, in 1956, the Nationalists still had a fairly sensible sports policy. In this regard I should like to quote a statement by Dr. Dönges made in 1956. He said—

Here there is a change now—

In other words, at that time the Nationalist Party had not come with a policy of sport based on dogma. They were still on much wiser ground. They had left it to the sport administrators through all the years virtually till then and it had all gone well.

What do we then find? We find the hon. late Dr. Verwoerd in 1965 coming with his own special brand of dogma. In his famous statement which the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation supported to the full together with the whole Cabinet, Dr. Verwoerd said—

He concluded by saying—

Hear, hear!

It is strange that hon. members opposite are now saying. “Hear, hear!”, because with their new policy they are throwing it out of the window.

*Their dogma in 1965 set us on this slippery slope. No mixed teams were going to be allowed and the All Black Tour of 1966 were cancelled as a result. We were told that the future of White existence depended upon this. I believe that that statement by the whole Cabinet may well have tipped the scale against us when it came to taking part in the Olympic Games in 1966. I know the then Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, was prepared to send a mixed South African team, but he had taken up an uncompromising stand in this dogma policy in 1965 which could have tipped the scales against us.

I want to pause at this point to look at the role of the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation. He was in the Cabinet at that time. I have said that he was a fine sportsman. He should have known the score in sport. He should have known he had a chance to do a service to South Africa. He could have said that this business about no Maoris was a lot of nonsense. He knew the Maoris from his play and they should have been able to come. Does he do that? Instead, this hon. Minister of Sport and Recreation supports this line of the Cabinet wholeheartedly. Let me read to this Committee what the hon. the Minister said:

That is the decision concerning the Maoris—

Then he says:

I ask this question of the hon. members. We know that we have had the All Blacks here in 1970 and that there was not any exploiting. Who told them that there would not be any exploiting? This side of the House told them. The hon. the Minister there and then let South Africa down for the first time.

Now we move to 1967. This dogma of Dr. Verwoerd caused the slide to start. The present hon. Prime Minister in 1967 discarded half of this dogma showing that it was quite useless stuff in the first place, but them himself came with new dogmas. These new dogmas had to be adhered to by our sport administrators when trying to handle the affairs of South Africa. One of these was that there should be no play in South Africa between White and non-White South Africans and that there should be no visiting non-Whites as individuals. These were the new dogmas. After this we had the case of D'Oliveira. This did not only lead to the loss of the first M.C.C. tour and the second M.C.C. tour, but it also led to a general running down of our good will in international sport. We had the case of Arthur Ashe, hon. members will remember that the Statement of the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation made no logic whatsoever. He could come if he was selected for a team, but he could not come if he came as an individual. Today I ask him pertinently whether Ashe can still come as a member of a team?

Tell me what do you feel about Ashe today?

I say that these three decisions were a big stick which was placed in the hands of our enemies with which they could beat us. I say they used it to beat our friends and the non- aligned nations. Furthermore I say that it was these factors and these dogmas which tipped the scales against us in 1970 when we were put out of the I.O.C. It is a serious business for any country to be put out of the I O.C. We were voted out of the I.O.C. by 32 votes against 28. If two people had voted differently we would not have been kicked out of the organization. If a country is put out of the I.O.C., it is an indication to all 26 affiliated kinds of sport that South Africa is not persona grata. Since then we found that one after the other of these 26 sports bodies barred their doors to South African teams. They even on occasions barred their doors against individual South African sportsmen.

Here again I want to pause to consider the part the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation played in this. What a chance he had as a sportsman he knew the calibre of the people who made up the M.C.C. and who made up the M.C.C. selection team. Only he could have told the Cabinet that we can trust these people to pick people on merit; but no, he knows better He said it was a political selection. He was the man who knew it was a political selection. The hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation is an amazing chap. What power he has! He does not have to attend the M.C.C. Cricket Selection Committee but he knows when a man is chosen on merit or not. However, he does not have to attend the selection committee meeting of the French Selection Committee, because he knows that Bourgarel has been selected on merit!

Now we get to 1971. In 1971 some more of these old hoary dogmas are discarded. They had to be discarded, but other dogmas have still been retained in this very latest sports policy. It is true that in this sports policy of the hon. the Prime Minister we have enough mixed sport between Black and White and Coloured South Africans to go a long way to please the Liberals, but we also know that we have enough mixed sport between Black, White and Coloured South Africans in South Africa to make a person like Mr. Jaap Marais go apoplectic. In our policy of today we still have a cloven hoof which I fear will cost us dear. Among these are the fact that the best South African teams may be chosen in many sports to represent us here and overseas, but not in all sports. We also have the fact that if visitors come to play our non-Whites, they may be watched by non-Whites but not by Whites. It is even a departure from the statement of Dr, Donges I have read.

I am going to leave the new policy of the Government for a moment. These will be dealt with later on by other hon. members. I will also deal with them myself. I leave these points, but I want to say that I hope sincerely, although I have my doubts, that the rot has stopped. So much damage has been done and so much goodwill has been spent as a result of the blunders and the bad policies of this Government. It is much more difficult to regain lost ground. I say the Government has a terrible responsibility before the face of South African sportsmen and as I say, the tragedy is that most of these dogmas which have cost us so dear have now been abandoned and discarded.

I now want to examine the handling of certain events, events which are fresh in people’s minds, I think in short it can be called the confrontation between the South African Cricket Association and the cricketers on the one hand and the Government and the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation on the other hand. It is serious and sad the way these relations have deteriorated. Again the reason, I believe, is primarily because of the bad policy and inept handling by the hon. the Minister. The cricketers could have expected the utmost sympathy from the Minister because it is the one sport, together with soccer, which appears to have been left out in the cold, and they knew it. In tennis and 26 other Olympic sports you can have mixed trials or tournaments, as they are called, and mixed South African teams can play both here and overseas in the Davis Cup and in the Olympic Games. When I say “mixed” I mean White, Coloured, Black, Brown and Indian South Africans playing both here and overseas. That is their policy. And yet the cricket people cannot take even two non-Whites to Australia, even though the Cricket Association made this very request. You see, Mr. Chairman, the sort of sympathy that the Cricket Association is getting.

Let us examine the handling of the relations with the Cricket Association and the cricketers. I want to ask the hon. the Minister some direct questions. I want to ask him: Did the South African Cricket Association want to pick the best team from all South Africans to represent South Africa in Australia on the cricket tour? I ask him to answer that now so that we can know where we stand.

I won’t answer that now; I will answer it when I speak.

Well, he could not answer it during the discussion on the Prime Minister’s Vote either. I also want to ask him whether the South African Cricket Association asked to hold trials at top level to choose their team, because I am quite satisfied by the reported statements by Cricket Association officials that they did ask for that; but we had no answer during the Prime Minister’s Vote.

Now the next question I want to ask him is this: Why, in criticizing the Cricket Association about the “second-best” request, namely to take the two non-Whites, did he give the impression that the Cricket Association had not asked to pick the best team on merit? Secondly, why did he indicate that, had the South African Cricket Association wished to choose on merit, it would have been a different matter? Now I want to give the hon. the Minister the quotation upon which I base that statement. I wish to quote from Die Burger of roundabout the 5th April. It says here—

Now I come to the point high-lighted by Die Burger.

Is there anything wrong with that?

I am carrying on—

He indicates quite clearly there that it would not in his opinion have been chosen on merit, as I read it, and then he goes on to say—

Sir, I ask him those direct questions in that regard, and I want to say that the whole of the Government press fastens on to the S.A.C.A.’s “second-best” request that two non-Whites accompany the teams in order to present the S.A.C.A. in a poor light. I suggest that the statement of the hon. the Minister of Sport played a part in causing these misleading statements.

Sir, in this confrontation which occurred, what was required of the hon. the Minister of Sport? I suggest that he needed to keep absolutely cool, to say very little and to be sympathetic towards the cricketers who had obviously, in accordance with their policy, been penalized. He needed to avoid widening the breach with the cricketers. What does he do, Mr. Chairman. He churns out statements like so many editions of newspaper, and I suggest that he does this highly mischievous thing which I have already referred to and which is known as “Frankie’s Challenge”. Sir, the trouble with the hon. the Minister of Sport is that he cannot resist playing politics. That is his favourite accusation against this side. This was an occasion when he was not dealing with politicians; he was dealing here with cricketers and he should have resisted playing politics and, as the hon. Chief Whip of the other side said, “calling the bluff” of the cricket people. When he issued that challenge, he did not have the slightest intention of allowing anything of the kind because he probably knew that his new Government policy forbade it. He raised this matter in the press; he should have raised it privately, if at all. Sir, let us just look quickly at the explanation which the hon. the Minister of Sport gave about this and his attempted justification of it in the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote. I regret to say that it reveals him to be a person with a completely muddled mind. I am not the only one who says this because his press, after his handling of the Sport Vote and the Tourism Vote and the Indian Vote last year said that it was very difficult to understand what the hon. the Minister was trying to say. Sir, when one looks at the Argus in which this statement appeared, it is absolutely clear that he was dealing with the South African Cricket Association. It is absolutely clear and I am not even going to quote it. The hon. the Minister can read it himself. The date of the report is Monday, the 5th April.

I think you had belter quote it to get it onto the record.

Very well, I will quote the relevant portion of it—

It is absolutely clear; there is no reference to the demonstration by the players at all in this report; it is entirely a reference to the action of the Cricket Association. In the debate on the Prime Minister's Vote, columns 5056 and 5058, the hon. the Minister of Sport attempted to explain why he asked for this declaration about cricket at all levels by referring to the statement issued by the players. Sir, if he would only check up, he would know immediately that he was clearly wrong on that point.

Sir, in the five minutes left to me, I now come to the question of the cricketers’ walk-off.

Do you support that?

I would merely say in that regard that what was needed was cool. I think it was scandalous that he should have likened the action of those young men to the action of the demo’s with which our sport teams have had to contend overseas while they have been playing matches. The hon. the Minister himself staged his own demonstration, and I suggest that it was petty and entirely vindictive. What does he do? He declines to present the medals to the players; he cancels the “braaivleis" to which he had invited the cricketers and, to make it complete, he boycotts the match and goes bathing. [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon. member is quite capable of making his own speech without any support from hon. members.

He said that he had done this as a protest against the way in which the match had been used to stage a political demonstration. You know, Sir, someone gave him some good advice; let me quote it—

Sir, do you know who said that? It was said by the hon. the Minister of Sport at the opening of the Sports Festival a week ago. Let him heed his own advice. I hope he is chastened. Sir. I doubt it, however.

Sir, I want to sum up, I have showed, I believe, that the Nationalist Party’s sports policy has had disastrous consequences for South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Sport has been the Minister of Sport on that side since 1966. It is true that the policy is the Government’s and the Prime Minister’s above all, but he bears a big responsibility for this policy too. He had a special opportunity as a sportsman to keep this Government straight in regard to these matters, and I say that he failed miserably. Sir, we now have a new sports policy, and this new sports policy is going to be an extremely difficult one to carry out. I suggest that the conduct of the Minister of Sport in very recent times shows that he is quite unable to see South Africa through the further minefields which are on our path. I say that as an old player he should know when to hang up his boots. I therefore now call upon him to resign. If he does not do so, I demand that he resign. South Africa and South African sport cannot afford him a moment longer.

Mr. Chairman, the tragedy of sport in South Africa is that some people cannot help carrying their politics on to the playing fields, and if there is one example of this, in spite of the pious language he used here this afternoon, it is the hon. member for Pinelands. A week or two ago I asked the hon. member for Pinelands whether he, who is an ex-representative cricket player and who still moves in cricket circles, had had any talks with the cricket players before that statement was issued which exposed the Government’s decision on the Australian tour, and before the walk-off took place. He did not have the courtesy to give me a reply; he could have replied to it directly.

I did; I answered you immediately.

No, the hon. member told me a few days ago …

Look in Hansard.

Yes, moments later he replied. [Laughter.] Sir, that was a slip of the tongue; he did not reply moments later. He did so in his next speech, an hour or so later. I then asked the hon. member for Johannesburg North whether he had talked to these people. He did not want to give me a reply either. In any case, I know what he did and what his comment was. The hon. member for Pinelands then implied that I had made an insinuation to the effect that he had been behind the walk-off. I want to say this to his credit … [Interjections.] No, I am not referring to the hon. member for Johannesburg North; I do not want to say that of him, but I want to say to the credit of the hon. member for Pinelands that I would never have suspected him of encouraging a walk-off. If the hon. member had had the courtesy that day to tell me that he had not spoken to those people …

But I said that the first I had heard of it was that Saturday afternoon.

Yes, the walk-off, but I was referring to other incidents, including the statement issued by the Cricket Association. My point is that the hon. member had had that opportunity because he moved in those circles. If he did not talk to them, then I want to accuse him today of having neglected his duty as a citizen. [Interjections.] Sir, I said in my last speech on sport here that sport could be a great potential asset to a country, but that it could also be dangerous and prejudicial, depending on how one uses it. Today I want to furnish two contrasting examples of how sport may be used as a prejudicial influence and how it may be used positively. A few days before the week-end when a group of cricketers walked off the field here, a number of young athletes at Stellenbosch achieved something which elicited this headline in the Cape Argus; “World class times by Broberg and Malan”. These achievements were made on the same occasion on which De Villiers Lamprecht ran the mile in under four minutes, an accomplishment which was almost completely overshadowed by the other achievements. These men are a reply to our expulsion —and let me set the hon. member for Pinelands straight about one thing. It was not the Government or the hon. the Minister of Sport who caused our expulsion from the Olympic Games. The hon. the Prime Minister reminded the hon. member of that the other day. We had been allowed to participate, but the Mexican Government then said that it was unable to guarantee our safety there. The hon. member must try to register these things in his top story. Then, with the doors closed, out athletes replied to this situation with those fine achievements of theirs which were an eye-opener to the world. In the case of another young athlete such as Karen Muir, when the doors were closed to her at the Olympic Games, not by the Government nor by the hon. the Minister, but by the action of the Mexican Government, her reaction was as follows: It will not be the end of the world. And when the athlete Paul Nash was given the choice of being able to go over and participate for Britain, for he had been born there, he said: “If I cannot run for my country, South Africa, I am not going to the Olympic Games”. That is the attitude of positive South Africans. The hon. member for Pinelands had an opportunity to point out in cricket circles not only the harmful effect of the walk-off—I do not want to blame him for that—but also the damage caused by that statement which was issued. The Argus reported that the hon. member “in a rare burst of anger”—he was play-acting a bit —commented on it, but I want to come to the reactions to that walk-off and the whole incident. I have asked here before whether those people are able to imagine what harm they are doing to their own sport, cricket, and to this country, since Afrikaans schools have during the past decade or so been encouraging their pupils to play cricket, the gentleman’s game. I read out a letter here, from an Afrikaans teacher, in which he stated what his reactions were. I told you that the Afrikaans-speaking person also had a degree of sentimentality, and that this demonstration should have taken place on the occasion of a Republican Festival hurt them. But from New Zealand a letter appeared in the Argus from a person who wrote that he had been completely in favour of South African cricket and rugby tours and that he was an active opponent of the anti-Springbok people, but after what happened at Newlands—I hope the hon. members for Pinelands and Johannesburg North are listening to this—he is not so certain any more. He said—

Is that Peter Hain speaking there?

No, it is not Peter Hain. If the hon. member used his common sense a little he would know that this is a positive pro-South African person.[Interjections] I say that that is the reaction. Is it loyal conduct now to cause this feeling in countries which have to play host to our teams? It had a prejudicial effect on cricket as a sport and on the relationships between the various language groups in South Africa. I want to contrast these two things and I want to make an appeal to hon. members opposite not to play this kind of game, as the hon. member for Pinelands also did the other day by accusing the hon. the Minister of “dirty play”. I hope the hon. member is listening to this now. We must not conduct our sporting activities in this way; we should exercise our influence in the sporting circles in which we have influence and to which we have access, as in the example set by our athletes who, while the doors to the world are still closed to them even now, replied by saying: “Then we shall achieve things in the interests of our country, so that the world will have to take notice of us.

Sir, that is the difference in approach. And I want to say that it is this same approach which emerges from the formulation of the sports policies by the hon. the Prime Minister on the one hand and the Leader of the Opposition on the other. With the formulation of the Prime Minister’s policy, opportunities are being created for every people in South Africa to progress and to accomplish the greatest possible achievements. This is not being done with a bluff or under a cloak, as these things in regard to the cricket were done, viz. to append two people onto a team, to be the mockery of their own Coloured people, who asked whether they had to pc along under such humiliating circumstances; is that what you want to do with us? I maintain that the Prime Minister's policy creates opportunities for every people to accomplish achievements among themselves and to be happy among themselves and so prevent a spirit of snobbery developing. But the policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition contains in it all the elements of humiliation.

Oh, he will change it again next week.

I have stated before that this was done under pressure from outside, and hon. members opposite took it amiss of me. I want to repeat it today. That policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was announced under pressure from outside. For the hon. the Leader of the Opposition still adheres to the standpoint—I do not know for how long—that in South Africa itself no mixed sport should take place on any level. But for the sake of the demands which are being made in the outside world, he is prepared to hold mixed trials, and I maintain that mixed trials cannot be held without mixing sport on the lowest level as well.

What about the Olympic Games sports?

That is quite a different matter. That is individual competition. It is not a team sport. I am referring to team sports. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Pinelands had a half-hour, and in that entire half-hour he struggled from beginning to end. Everything coming from this side he tried to reject and condemn. He made a very determined attempt to ridicule everything which is being done by the Government and by this Department of the hon. the Minister. But it was a poor attempt and I think he proved nothing more than that it is in fact that Party which dragged sport into the political arena. What one finds striking is that the hon. member said nothing about their own policy—I hear they have one now—except that he referred to the “smart sports policy of the United Party”. I think the United Party is actually apprehensive about discussing their own policy. I think it is particularly because of the way the Cape Times, for example, has been taking them, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, to task during the last few days that they do not now feel very inclined to discuss it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition keeps on telling us—and that is his right; let him do it if he wants to— year after year: “We want to leave sport to the sporting bodies in South Africa.” He repeated it again when he announced his sports policy at such an inappropriate time. My conclusion is simply this. If one comes forward so half-heartedly with a policy, and at the same time and in the same breath you have recourse to saying “leave it to the sporting bodies”, it is always to my mind evidence of a vacillating attitude, of a man who is not certain of his case, and that is why he leaves it to the sporting bodies. I just want to say, and the hon. the Prime Minister emphasized this specifically, that we also believe that the administration of sport should be left to the sporting bodies. But it is also made quite clear by the hon. the Prime Minister that we do not leave the management or the control of the government of our country to those people, nor do we allow ourselves to be intimidated or told by those people what to do.

I should like to reply to something the hon. member for Pine lands said—and there was a lot he tried to say. Inter alia he referred to what Dr. Verwoerd bad supposedly said in 1965. Let me begin a little prior to that. Up to that stage, more or less, nothing much had been said about sport and its practice, nothing in regard to the question of whether it should be mixed or not. Years ago, when the United Party was still in power—that was many years ago, but I still remember it—there was nothing of this nature whatsoever. Everyone was satisfied that Whites would participate in White sport, etc. In fact the non-Whites at that time did not participate to any great extent in sport because the facilities were not there for them. But, as I have said, up to that stage we were all apparently satisfied with the status quo as it existed at that time The United Party did nothing about it. They only began to intervene when our Springbok rugby team was in New Zealand and demonstrators and their kindred spirits from Britain and elsewhere converged on our players in New Zealand. The hon. member for Pinelands must tell me if I am wrong.

You are wrong.

These were not politicians, but sportsmen, and all kinds of awkward question were put to them. They were asked what they would do if this or that were to happen. It was not confined to our players; they also tried to intimidate our team managers in this wav. It led to various statements being issued from various quarters in regard to this matter. I think that that was the right moment for a statesman like the late Dr. Verwoerd to state what our policy and what our standpoint in that regard was. I do not know whether the hon. member for Pineland’s memory has left him in the lurch, but that was what gave rise to Dr. Verwoerd’s statement. I want to say something to hon. members which is not new but which is worth repeating.

The hon. members are so fond of levelling the accusation at us that we are so sensitive when a man's skin colour is not white that we are opposed to him in all spheres of politics. That is not the case. On this side we have a responsible Government which realizes its responsibilities and which ensures that in every sphere of the political economy it takes into account only what is best for everyone. It is for this reason that we are adapting this policy of ours to circumstances on a national level and to our policy of separate development. We are doing this because it is a very fertile breeding ground for friction and conflict. Hon. members must not tell me that I am talking nonsense or that I want to gloss over the matter. Hon. members will recall that we had an incident at Newlands a few years ago. We also had an incident at Port Elizabeth, and last year one at Kimberley. Let me just say, whatever else may be said in regard to that incident, that I was on the main pavilion and witnessed everything from beginning to end. There was a stage when I felt that if it would have helped I would have shouted: “Look out! Something is coming this way!”, because I saw it.

Everything which was said about the incident, passed me by. It was simply because a conflict took place. The non-Whites simply ran in among the Whites, and that was the end of it. I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that he kept on talking about a so-called dogma which we on this side of the House supposedly adhered to; however, that is not the case. I think that I have, by what I have just explained, indicated that this is not a dogma. These are the actions of a responsible Government which is ensuring that all its sportsmen and sportswomen, and the non-Whites as well, gel a_ square deal. As a responsible Government its task is not only to ensure that the various skin colours are kept separate because that is not the major point. Our viewpoint has always been to keep the various population groups separate and to give them parallel lanes of development so that friction and conflict and eventually perhaps great suffering may thus be avoided.

To this I should Like to add that this new policy of the National Party in respect of sport, as it is called by hon. members on the opposite side, is nothing new to me. For me it is part of the process of establishing separate lanes of development. [Interjection.] The hon. member can do nothing else but laugh, for he himself has nothing to offer. If situations axe forced upon us, we can decide what should be done. The picture changes from day to day. Just think of the hon. members opposite. There were times when they did not say a word about this, but now it is they who have the most to say. They appear to be satisfied that demonstrations, walk-offs and other similar incidents should take place, because they may perhaps derive a little advantage from that. We shall continue to adapt ourselves to adjust to the policy of the National Party. That which does not belong together, for various reasons, must be kept in separate lanes. Traditionally we have not had any difficulties. In the days when they still held the reins of government in their hands, the United Party were satisfied that only Whiles should play rugby against the All Blacks and against other teams. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for De Aar and I can only come to the conclusion that the approach of hon. members on that side of the House to the whole question of South Africa’s position in international sport is based on fear. They have the quite unjustifiable fear that any relaxation of the outdated and outmoded sports policy will be the thin end of the wedge that will bring down the conventional way of life in South Africa. What they seem to forget is that the playing of sport, the watching of sport and the way we identify ourselves with our international sport heroes is in fact a very integral part of the South African way of life.

I think hon. members will be very naive indeed if they think that South Africans, irrespective of their political affiliations, are idly going to stand by and watch South Africa become totally isolated in international sport. We have now had ample opportunity of studying the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister on sport. After having studied the text very carefully I find that the new so-called multi-national sports policy is a completely muddled and in effectual sports policy. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation whom they think they are bluffing. They come here with a sports policy, a so-called new sports policy, which is in fact the old policy wrapped in a little bit of gift wrapping and they have not even made a respectable parcel of it. During the debate on the vote of the hon. the Prime Minister I sounded a warning and I want to say again that what the Nationalist Party is doing here, is in effect damaging sport in South Africa for the reason that by encouraging the non-Whites to find their own international sport contacts, the Government is in fact putting White sport in South Africa in jeopardy. We can quite easily find ourselves in the position where non-White sports bodies will be recognized internationally, but not White sports bodies. We have had a classic example already. We have the example of table tennis. White table-tennis players cannot take part in international sport today, but non-Whites can. However, the Government stopped them by refusing them visas.

Although the sports policy was announced by the hon. the Prime Minister, one must assume that the mechanics of the policy and its implementation will be carried out by the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation. In this regard I was very pleased indeed to read a statement in the paper where the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation promised to explain certain aspects of the new sports policy in great detail. I want to say that we on this side of the House are looking forward with a great deal of interest to this explanation, because I intend asking some very pertinent questions. I should like the hon. the Minister of Sports and Recreation to give me plain yes and no answers.

According to the new policy of the Government. any sport which falls in the ambit of the Olympic Games will be treated on a different basis. We are told that we can have mixed trials to determine which will be the best sportsman or men in these sports who will be sent to the Olympic Games. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, firstly, how the boxing team to go to the Olympic Games will be selected? Will the Government allow a Black boxer and a White boxer to box in South Africa to determine who the best boxer is? I want to go a little further. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation whether the Government will allow a Black wrestler and a White wrestler to wrestle each other in South Africa to determine who in fact is the best wrestler in South Africa who shall go to the Olympic Games. We heard the hon. member for Stellenbosch talk about team sports. Of course, he was quite wrong. There are a number of team sports in the Olympic Games. I want to mention one. We know for a fact that amateur football is an Olympic sport. Amateur football is still a very important sport in South Africa, although the hon. the Prime Minister did not seem to think so. Thousands of White and non-White men play football. They can go to the Olympic Games. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation whether the Government will allow the Football Association to choose an amateur soccer team on merit to go to the Olympic Games? These are a few of the questions to which I should like straightforward yes or no answers.

We have a sport like karate which is a close contact sport. Will karate trials be allowed to take place in South Africa? We have the sport of judo. We have the sport of swimming. I can name numbers of them. I should like the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation to give us clear answers on these questions. He has offered to do so.

Now I want to come to a very important question. I should like the hon. the Minister to listen very carefully to what I have to say. According to the concept of the new multi-national sports policy of the Government the various ethnic groups will now be recognized as nations. I want to speak about football because I know something about it. If we decide to choose the best White football eleven in South Africa, will that team be allowed to play against, say, the Indians in South Africa? Will we be allowed to play the very best team from the Transkei in South Africa? Or will we be allowed to play a game of football at international level in South Africa against the Coloureds? These are the questions I would like to put to the hon. the Minister and to which I would like some very clear answers.

Then I want the Government to stop bluffing itself, because if we do not have multi-racial sport at certain levels in South Africa we are going to be completely isolated in international sport. Here I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he follow the guidelines which have been established by the United Party, We say we will allow multi-racial sport at international and at national level. We formulated this policy in the very sure knowledge that South Africans are strong enough, that they have enough character and enough common sense, to see to it that by doing this not a single convention in South Africa will be broken and that it will not mean the end of Western civilization in South Africa. This is a clearcut policy. Even the non-Whites have not accepted the policy of the hon. the Minister. It can already be seen that the non-Whites who play rugby are split in two groups; some say they will go to Australia and others say that they will not go. There we have the first difficulty. The Government has even offered to finance them but they do not want to go. They are living in a fool’s paradise. We must adjust ourselves to the twentieth century in regard to sport, otherwise we are going to find ourselves completely isolated in the world of sport. I want to say again that the South African, irrespective of his political belief, will not accept this.

Mr. Chairman, on the eve of our Republic Festival, and while our sportsmen and sportswomen are notching up fine achievements, it is actually regrettable that we have to conduct debates in the way in which the hon. member did so. Before I come back to that hon. member and to the hon. member for Pinelands, I want to inform the hon. the Minister and his department that this annual report is a very fine testimonial for the department and for what it does for our young sportsmen and women. There is only one problem, and we encounter that on page 3. where a summary of financial assistance is given. The problem is that nothing is being voted for the Olympic Association. Since the reins of the Olympic Association are now in new hands, I should very much like to ask the hon. the Minister to also grant, in some way or another, very strong financial assistance to the body in the future.

I should like to come back to the speeches of the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the hon. member for Pinelands. Throughout their representations it struck me that one important point was never broached by them. Not a single word was said about the communist pressure groups that are, on a world-wide scale, trying to confuse sport with politics. This is not only a situation that we are faced with in the Republic. It is also prevalent in the United States where racial tension runs high, and we encounter it in the integrated sport there. It is the case in Western Germany, in the United Kingdom and in Australia, and those hon. members know it. However, when they speak about our sport they do not have a single word to say about these pressure groups who hide behind this sports scene, for what reason do those hon. members keep silent about that? When the hon. member for Pinelands stood up to speak this afternoon, he gave the hon. the Minister a stab in the eye about the cancellation of our participation in the Olympic Games. Is that correct? He said it was the hon. the Minister's fault. I should like to refer the hon. member for Pinelands to the book “Vorster’s Foreign Policy” by Gail Cockram. I quote from page 207—

Then she quotes the hon. Leader —

When it suited that hon. member and his side, his hon. Leader admitted to political pressure and that was behind the cancellation of that Olympiad. Tonight, now that that hon. member sees a chance of making political capital out of it, it is the hon. the Minister of Sport’s fault, I then want that hon. member to repudiate his leader and say that he is also implicated.

You did not understand my argument.

The hon. member has no argument.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North said that there is no “clarity” in this sports policy of the National Party. I should very much like to reply to him on that. This side of the House says that sport is important but at all times the interests of the Fatherland come first. Our hon. Prime Minister said this to them very clearly. If the relinquishing of principles is the price, we prefer isolation. Our strength and our faith are reflected in that, and our Prime Minister is not afraid to say as much. But what does one get from that hon. Leader? International sports relations must be retained at all costs, even at the cost of principles and tradition. That is typical of the political approach of that party throughout its political spectrum—permissive, negative and half-hearted in everything. So much for their perspective. Does the sports policy of that side of the House have any depth? There is no depth in their declared sports policy. It is an opportunistic policy which that hon. Leader announced. It merely amounts to allowing mixed trials where sports associations request it. It cannot stand up to any real test. It would cause chaos—the hon. member for Pinelands knows this—merely to leave this matter in the hands of certain sports administrators in this country.

What is the corresponding policy on this side? This policy is based on the important cornerstone of the policy of separate development, the recognition of the principle of multi-nationality. It is based on justice and respect for the individual and the people. The hon. member for Mooi River is shaking his head for nothing. It is merely a further logical development of the incorporation of the traditional in our sport, as our Prime Minister correctly did as far back as 1967, This is fundamental thinking, logical, well-thought-out and positive in comparison with the negativism of that side. The National Party’s approach to international sport is beneficial to that, because there is a fixed basis. Countries abroad know exactly where they stand with the sports policy of this side of the House. The example is to be found in the events concerning cricket, which that hon. member had a hand in, and which placed the Australian Prime Minister in an awkward position in his own country. The hon. member and those cricket players ought not to have done that.

That side’s declared policy is merely grist to the mill of anti-apartheid demonstrators, Sanroc, the Anti-Apartheid Movement, Black Power and the Communists. Their policy is one of concessions that have an ad hoc basis, on a road of continual concessions to integration.

Mr. Chairman, I do hope hon. members will not take it amiss of me if I do not react immediately to what was said previously. I want to continue this debate on another note.

On the eve of this great Republican Festival and sports festival which is now in progress, the hon. the Prime Minister spoke these significant words (translation)—

I am quoting these words from the marvellous souvenir brochure published by the Sports Festival Committee. I also want to point out to this House that if all of us make use of this brochure, follow the programmes which are now in progress and make use of the invitations which we find in our letterboxes from time to time, we should by this time have seen a few of these marvellous displays. From the very first day —it was a Saturday—when the opening ceremony took place, it was a pleasure to see all the sportsmen of South Africa on parade in their different coloured blazers with distinctive badges. There were sportsmen and women in action on parade. They were worth seeing, If we had availed ourselves of the opportunities afforded us by means of this programme, we would have seen last Saturday what some of us were in fact able to see, viz. the displays in respect of athletics, golf, clay pigeon shooting, rowing and waterskiing. During the next week, many more will follow,

And jukskei!

Yes, jukskei will also follow. I want to return at once to the department under whose auspices all these matters are being arranged. I want to pay tribute to the Department of Sport and Recreation for this magnificent edition of their annual report. Since there is so much to quote, I want to refer to pages 3 and 9 of this report. I want to inform this hon. House that the sportsmen and women of South Africa are grateful for these coaching and training projects which have during the past year been financed to an amount of R66 518. On page 4 you will find that in respect of administration of national bodies and other matters, the department ensured that various types of sport were assisted to an amount of R193 218. For that i think all the sportsmen and women of South Africa are very grateful. I do not want to elaborate on this It speaks for itself. An hon. member asked a moment ago: What about jukskei? hon. members_ will see that jukskei received nothing. It is not because jukskei did not ask. In fact, it was able to ask, but did not want to for two reasons. The one is this: Jukskei does not begrudge the other types of sport the amounts they receive, and it wants to encourage this situation further here. The jukskei players are also satisfied at having received nothing, because they did not ask for anything. They think that if one enjoys a sport, and appreciates that type of sport, one must work for it and undertake the administration thereof oneself, and that one should as far as possible try to make do with one’s own finances. They also believe that fundamentally one’s organization should be absolutely sound. However, jukskei will need money in future, and then it will ask for it. I am certain that the representatives of that sport will not ask in vain. Jukskei has its own sound organization. It has its own jukskei park in Kroonstad, with accommodation for 300 players of both sexes. There it also has its own clubhouse and grass mat pitches with 72 sandpits, where championship meetings can be held. We wish that other sports could also have such facilities.

The jukskei organizers suggested at a general meeting of 55 different types of sport, under the auspices of the South African Federation for Youth and Sport, that all the different sports in South Africa should co-operate to establish a huge stadium, where sport at its best can be offered to the public, and where South Africans can see in their own country what they do not normally see. The top-notch sportsmen can go and play overseas, but the public is always longing to see what it is not their privilege to see, because they cannot go overseas as well. That is why the sport of jukskei was so eager to have a stadium like that here. They made a suggestion to that effect, and the proposal was unanimously accepted by that meeting. Representations in this regard were then made to the hon. the Minister and his department. What is going to become of them, is of course a different matter. We did not want to exercise pressure in that respect.

In this powerful mustering of sportsmen which is now taking place, jukskei did not take a back seat either. In our young days, I learned a lot from cricket. If a man was fair, honest and sporting it was said “it is cricket’’, or if the man behaved badly, or was disobedient, or even if he did not obey the laws of the country or abide by the policy of the country, it was said “it is not cricket”. As far as jukskei is concerned, an equivalent for those expressions has also been sought in common parlance. The late Pieter de Waal of broadcasting fame then, after he had made the acquaintance of jukskei properly and intensively, coined the wonderful expressions “dit is jukskei” or “dit is nie jukskei nie”. That is what people wanted to say in common parlance, and that is the expression that was coined for them. These expressions are also being included now in the Groot Afrikaanse Woordeboek which is being compiled.

Jukskei was only established as an organized sport in 1938. In 1952 this sport was registered as a non-profit making company. It registered its own colours and badge with the department. It is known throughout the country, and with the help, advice and assistance of Panorama and South African Digest, this great sport of ours has met with a response in several parts of the world and in several countries. I am thinking for example of countries like America, Canada, Holland, England, Ireland and Australia. I should just like to read out a few quotations from the kind of comment which has been received in this connection. The librarian of the Annunciation School, Arkon, Ohio, writes as follows—

A certain Warren Suasey, of St. Louisville, writes as follows—

From Ralph Faust comes the following letter—

Then we also have the following comment from a certain Herman Jansen, of Winterswijk, in Holland (translation)—

From Denis Herbstein in London we received the following letter—

… [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member for Innesdal dwelled on jukskei and the progress jukskei had made in the national life, and he did so in a way which made it clear to me that he was a man who was in earnest. There was only one small matter which slightly amused me while he was speaking, and that was: What would they do if an integrated American team wanted to visit this country to play jukskei against them?

As regards the hon. member for Pretoria District, I want to say that the hon. member is confused as far as their own policy is concerned. He does not understand it, and of our policy he does not have the faintest notion.

State your policy.

Sir, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation, as a man who has worn the Springbok jersey with distinction, to get up and tell us in clear terms whether he endorses the shocking statement of the hon. the Prime Minister, i.e. that the Springboks have never represented South Africa. I wonder whether he has the courage to get up here and tell all the Springboks of the past and of the present, “You have not represented South Africa, your beloved country; you have represented only a population group of South Africa.”?

The White nation.

In terms of this new sports policy announced by the hon. the Prime Minister, it is only the population groups of South Africa that may participate in the various kinds of sport. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, as chief adviser to the Cabinet as far as sport is concerned, to insist on the withdrawal of this senseless statement, and to urge the hon. the Prime Minister to apologise to the Springboks for this insult.

*Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say to the hon. the Minister of Sport that we of the United Party regret the shabby treatment meted out to him when he as Minister of Sport wanted to enter the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote at a specific time but was curtly refused permission. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that once before during his political career he courageously made a decision, rightly or wrongly, which radically affected his future. It is very obvious, Sir, that the hon. the Minister today offers his Prime Minister advice which is sneered at and completely rejected. Surely the hon. the Minister has retained a measure of the guts which he displayed in years gone by. Surely he is not satisfied to be a puppet. As he is a financially independent man, why does he not walk out of this Sports portfolio which, after all, has been taken over, it would seem by the hon. the Prime Minister, and thereby indicate that he is no longer prepared to swallow these insults and, incidentally, also prove to the world that he is not the creator of this new Frankenstein that is stalking our sports fields …

Are you not ashamed of yourself?

Of course not. Let him make it clear that the creator is the Prime Minister, I wonder whether there is one single person in the whole of South Africa, including the hon. the Prime Minister, who understands the new Nat sports policy. I shall not take the hon. the Minister to task if he is unable to answer the various questions which have been flung at him across the floor of the House. Surely this sports policy can be classed as the supreme folly of the Nationalist Party. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will assist us to try to understand the following: Whites and non-Whites may together represent South Africa in one Olympic team, that is, after they have competed in a so-called international event in South Africa. This international team, let it be noted, may not wear Springbok blazers. When this so- called international event has been staged, a mixed team is selected to represent South Africa, and may I point out that this holding of an international event where mixed teams are selected on merit, is a direct act of piracy from United Party policy, which was enunciated earlier on, in which we said clearly that if the sports bodies of South Africa requested it, we would in the interests of South Africa allow mixed trials for mixed teams to be selected to represent South Africa internationally,

*Sir, the hon. the Minister should tell the people and my hon. verkrampte friends in this House in very clear terms that an Olympiad embraces a comprehensive series of types of sport, such as, to mention a few, athletics, swimming, soccer, boxing and wrestling. At this international event, in terms of the new Nat policy. White and non-Whites will compete to represent South Africa in the international Olympiad. Can you see, Sir, how my hon. friends, for example, the hon. members for Witbank, Sunnyside, Pretoria Central, Odendaalsrus and Vanderbijlpark, are shuddering at the idea of a mixed team that will represent South Africa? Sir, I would pay anything to hear the candidate of the Nationalist Party in the constituency of Waterberg defending this new sports policy in the face of Mr. Jaap Marais. Sir, that would be a spectacle, the likes of which we do not see in this country every day. Will the hon. the Minister tell us whether this Olympic team, on its return to this country, will be able to compete inside or outside South Africa against an international team? Sir, if we take this policy to its extreme consequence and we accept that the Nationalist Party’s policy will, unfortunately, lead to independent Bantus tans, it will mean that each population group in White South Africa will not have the privilege of representing White South Africa, but the teams of the Bantustans will, in fact, be allowed to represent the Bantustans. Sir, the Prime Minister has permanently deprived South Africa’s Whites of the right to represent South Africa. To use his own words, I want to say that this is the biggest rubbish the Nationalist Party has ever dished up to South Africa’s sportsmen. It is a phenomenon which is baffling. It is baffling if we do not remember the proverb of the Grecian Roman decades, i.e. those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first strike with blindness.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, who has just resumed his seat, again displayed his ignorance here tonight. He came to light here with an attack of sorts to the effect that the Prime Minister had allegedly said that the Springboks had never yet represented South Africa. But he wrested it out of context completely. Surely the hon. member knows that the hon. the Prime Minister said that the Springboks had traditionally represented White South Africa, and that the Springboks of the past were proud of the fact that they had represented White South Africa. It is very clear, too, from the policy of this party that Springbok colours will only be awarded to White South Africans. If South Africa is allowed to participate in the Olympic Games, that team will not participate as a Springbok team. They will go there as a contingent representing South Africa. The hon. member said that he did not know whether there was one person in South Africa who understood the policy of this Government. I know of at least one person in this country who does not understand it, and that is the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. Let me put it like this to the hon. member who ostensibly wants to be a champion for sport as well here this evening: Give us some sport and nominate a candidate in Waterberg.

The hon. member for Pinelands tried again this afternoon to criticize the Prime Minister and the Minister of Sport and Recreaton for having supposedly been responsible for bringing politics into sport. He also said that the Prime Minister and this hon. Minister had on various occasions in their speeches referred to sport. Now I challenge that hon. member to mention one single occasion on which the Prime Minister or the Minister of Sport, at a social occasion or a sporting occasion, discussed our sports policy and politics. Both these gentlemen on various occasions set nut the sports policy of the National Party, but then it was on political platforms where the voters had the right to know where they stood with the National Party. They did not, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did, come forward at a social function held here in the Cape by some cricket groups or other, in a closed circle, with a new policy, a nondescript policy, as the hon. the Prime Minister also indicated on 22nd April in column 4995, an absolutely nondescript policy. But now the hon. member for Pinelands has the following to say about their policy—

I find this in the Cape Times of 19th April, 1971. But the sportsmen and sports administrators still do not know where they stand with the United Party policy. But let us assume that they do know where they stand now, then surely the hon. member admitted in this statement that previously they never knew where they stood with the United Party.

But let me come to an entirely new sphere now. Last Friday afternoon we had a visit to the Gallery by a very special team, a team of paraplegic sportsmen and women. I think it is fitting that we pay tribute in this House tonight to these men and women, the paraplegic sportsmen and women. Since it is only human that we who are blessed with the use of all our limbs and senses, would be sympathetic towards these people, I want to say to the paraplegic sportsmen and women of South Africa this evening that that sympathy which we had for them, has given way to admiration. When one considers the results which have already been achieved by them at the Republican Festival sports meetings, we find that two world records have already been broken during the past week by the South African paraplegics here in Cape Town. For that we want to take off our hats to them in admiration.

Then I should also like to advocate to the hon. the Minister that if in future applications are made by the S.A. Paraplegic Sports Association or the S.A. Association of Blind Bowlers for funds from the Department, we want to ask the Minister to make a generous contribution to these two sports. We are asking this of the Minister not so much because we are sorry for these people, but because we believe that these people, with the achievements they have accomplished and which we believe they will still accomplish in future, will cause us who are blessed with the full use of our limbs and senses to be grateful, and will not only cause us to be grateful, but will also inspire us to use our limbs and our healthy bodies and also win fame for South Africa.

There is another sphere as well in which I should like to exchange a few ideas with the hon. the Minister. There are two spheres in regard to which I believe that this Department could also make a particularly positive contribution. That is in particular the group of the Department which deals with junior athletics, coaching and the courses which are being offered. We have just disposed of the Bill which deals with drug addicts, but the Minister stated in that debate that it should also be a team effort. I think that one of the most susceptible spheres where this matter can be encouraged and the use of drugs can be dealt a death blow, is among our young boys and girls who are interested in sport. These young boys and girls who look after their bodies as they should, and as we all should, also have their admirers in every school; and when we bring it to their attention through this Department and persuade them of the fact that a sound body cannot be kept sound if drugs are used, this will also act as a leavening agent spreading to other secondary schools and pupils who do not participate actively in sport but who nevertheless have that hero worship for their senior sportsmen and women.

Then there is something else which sometimes causes me concern. It is that many of our junior athletes who are often responsible for the records, past and present, which stand on the record book, often disappear from the scene as soon as they become senior athletes. I know that fortunately this is not normally the case, but a very great percentage of these athletes disappear from the scene. We should like to recommend to the Minister to have the real reason investigated as to why these promising sportsmen so often disappear from the scene. Is it perhaps faulty coaching? Could it perhaps be that these people are not being given the correct mental preparation and do not have the correct attitude towards the sport they practise? We ask the Minister to try to establish what the reason is for his unhealthy state of affairs. We believe that we must retain every young athlete who is still in the junior stage and has the potential to win fame for South Africa within the ranks of our athletes. We also believe that if this enquiry does indicate any faults in our coaching methods or in the way in which our athletes are being mentally prepared for competitions, this would also encourage our senior athletes to even more splendid achievements.

In conclusion we want to thank the Department sincerely for what they have already done for the young people of South Africa, for the young athletes, for the adventure courses which are being offered. We want to give the officials the assurance that the public of South Africa appreciates this attention they are giving to our young boys and girls, and we are certain that this attention will not be in vain, but that it will still produce results in future.

I am afraid I will have to bring the discussion back to a fairly political level, but I would like to commend the hon. member for Bethlehem for his humane attitude towards the paraplegics. I think all of us will agree with that.

I listened this afternoon to the hon. member for De Aar, who was putting in a strong plea for South Africa to remember the traditional attitudes in this country. He made the point that before the Nationalist Government came in, the same familiar attitudes towards sport still obtained and people were very satisfied with those attitudes. That may very well he so, hut I must point out to the hon. member for De Aar, that the world of the 1970s is not the world of the 1940s.

No, certainly not.

No, and even South Africa of the 1970s is not the South Africa of the 1940s.

But the participation in sport is still the same.

As far as sport is concerned, attitudes have changed considerably. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, could I hear myself speak for five minutes?

Mr. Chairman, we cannot hear a word the hon. member is saying.

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members to cease making senseless interjections.

Thank you, Sir. The point I was making is that some of the countries we have traditionally played games against are no longer homogeneous, as they were. Let us take Great Britain for instance. In the 1940s Great Britain was largely a homogeneous White country, but today it is not so. There are large numbers of non-Whites in Britain with the result that Britain is today a heterogeneous country. France, too, has had non-White immigrants. Therefore teams are likely to come from those countries which are not homogeneous White teams. If they have not changed the nature of their own populations, countries have changed their attitudes quite radically towards the colour problem. The whole world has changed its attitude towards race discrimination except South Africa, which has been marching steadily in the opposite direction. Whether we like it or not, the non-White nations themselves today exercise at much greater influence in world affairs, be they cultural, economic, sporting or political affairs, than they did in the 1940s in international bodies. The hon. member for De Aar must remember that hardly any of the independent Black nations of Africa existed before the 1940s. That is a phenomenon which has come into being since the end of World War 11. The interjection of these non-White countries into international, bodies, sporting and otherwise, has changed the whole outlook of the world. There is tremendous inter-action across the colour line in all these different spheres. Those White nations which are still homogeneous are also influenced by the fact that they have to maintain good relations with their non-White neighbours. Australia, for instance, is extremely concerned with maintaining good relations with her Asian neighbours. One could take a country such as Great Britain which, apart from the fact that it has become heterogeneous, wants to maintain good race relations not only inside her own borders, as does America too, but also wants to maintain good Commonwealth relations. It is this factor, for instance, which became so important when the whole issue of the cancellation of the South African cricket tour to play against the M.C.C. last year arose. These are issues which we cannot ignore. If we do ignore them, we do so at our own cost, as we are going to end up absolutely isolated from all the international sporting fields.

When did you discover that?

The hon. the Minister and the Nationalist Government have come up with a complicated formula which they hope will save South Africa from being kicked out of every international event. In the last year and the first three months of this year alone, a further nine international events have excluded South Africa from participating. This is the trend, which is inevitably going to continue. I might say that I do not think that even the formula evolved, at last, by the United Party of allowing mixed sport at national and international level, is going to help either. What the world wants is for South Africa to say unequivocally that we will play multiracial sport and will choose our teams on merit.

They want their pound of flesh.

What they want is that we must adopt the attitude which is the normal attitude in every other country, I am very glad that I belong to a party which can say unequivocally that it is in favour of multi-racial sport. We would not prevent club multi-racial sport, provincial, national or international multi-racial sport.

That is why you are all by yourself.

That may be so, but let me tell the hon. member that things are going to change in South Africa, because the rest of the world is changing, unless we are prepared to find ourselves in an all-White sporting laager playing against ourselves. That, believe me, can be very boring indeed, ft is nonsense for us to say that we were kicked out of the Olympic Games and other international events by communist countries, because that is not true. The communist countries were among the countries which kicked us out and I have no doubt that they used South Africa's racial policy to persuade the Afro- Asian countries to kick us out. They also persuaded some of the Western capitalist countries to vote for kicking us out if, indeed, they did not do that of their own volition. This is the new attitude in the world today and we have to adapt ourselves to it. The hon. the Minister of Sport has promised us that he will explain everything during the course of this Vote. There are a lot of things that remain to be explained under the complicated formula which has been evolved by the Government. I want to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister and I hope he will answer them. I have been trying to make head or tail out of this, but I am very uncertain about certain matters. I remember a couple of years ago there was the question of two leading soccer teams playing against each other, a Black soccer team and a White team. They were going to play in Swaziland, because they were not allowed to play here. Under the new policy where we will now have international sport, would they be allowed to play against each other in South Africa?

Those were two South African teams.

Yes, but under the Government's policy there is a Black nation and a White nation. In fact, there are about eight Black nations in South Africa, plus 11 in South-West Africa. For purposes of sport, the hon. the Prime Minister said that all the Black nations would play together, because there could be a White team coming from overseas to play in Soweto against all the Africans. What I want to know is whether this international aspect will also stretch to White South Africa. Can a Black national team not play against a South African national team?

No.

So we can still not have these soccer teams playing against each other. If they want to play elsewhere they run the risk of losing their passports. At what stage, for example, does a South African tournament become international? How many foreigners have to compete in a tournament, like a tennis tournament or an athletics meeting, before it becomes international? One foreigner, two foreigners, three foreigners, or how many? How many must compete before Indian and Coloured South Africans will be allowed to take part in the so-called international event? This is something I would like the hon. the Minister to answer.

I now come to the question of golf. We are told that in the South African international tourneys non-White players, like Papwa Sewgolum for example, will be able to play. Will he only be allowed to play in the South African Open? We know that foreigners come to play the whole circuit of golf tournaments. Will he be allowed to play in those as well? We would like to know. Could non-Whites from Swaziland, for example, come across to South Africa and play in the so-called international tournaments in South Africa? It would be very interesting to know.

Why not?

I do not know why not. I have no objection to it at all. I am trying to clarify the Government’s policy and not my policy. I have no difficulties with my policy at all. I want to know if they will be able to come to South Africa and play White teams. Would the hon. the Minister be prepared to allow a Black professional boxer, an American for example, to come to this country and to box against a White professional boxer? hon. members shake their heads. I do not know what the criteria are. On some occasions hon. members nod their heads and on other occasions they shake them. It would be very useful indeed if we could have a few criteria laid down. Not everybody thinks the way the hon. the Minister and his Cabinet think. For instance, when the hon. the Minister tried this call-their-bluff business with the South African Cricket Association and said that they must tell him whether they are prepared to play multi-racial sport in South Africa he was quite sure that they were all going to say “No”. He could not imagine that a White cricket club …

Did anyone say “yes?”

Of course they did94 per cent of them. The majority of them said “Yes". [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, those hon. members on the opposite side who are so enthusiastic now, particularly the hon. members in the front benches, should rather tell us now whether they are going to nominate a candidate in Waterberg to ask these same questions. I shall tell them why I am asking this. I am asking this because the National Party, with its present candidate, is going to knock the H.N.P. for six, and we want that side of the House to nominate a candidate so that we can knock the U.P for six as well. The hon. members must tell us now whether they are going to nominate a candidate there. But now there is not a peep out of them about this matter. [Interjections.]

I should like to return to the hon. member for Houghton. I think the hon. member for Houghton's introduction this evening was, to tell the truth, quite responsible. It is quite correct that there are countries which are no longer quite so homogeneous as before. The hon. member mentioned England and France as examples. These countries also changed their standpoints in respect of colour. In the same way they changed their standpoint in respect of colour in sport. I readily acknowledge that the hon. member is correct when she says that all White countries would probably like to retain ties of friendship with non-White countries as far as sports relationships are concerned where they previously had such ties with such countries. It is in fact the attitude of the Government to retain its friendly sports ties with its traditional sports friends. This Government is also intent on taking cognizance of changing schools of thought in the world and of taking cognizance of the change in population structures in other countries. The best example of that is that this Government has said that Mr. Bourgarel may come to South Africa as a member of the French team.

Then why not D'Oliveira?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Central has woken up now Perhaps we shall hear more from him later on in the evening— that is the sense of responsibility displayed by this side of the House. But the National Party is not prepared to throw open its doors regardless of the consequences which that may have for inter alia, the White population in South Africa. The National Party based its policy on separate development which recognizes separate peoples in South Africa. This must be seen as the basis of the premise of the National Party Government. The National Party is not prepared to deviate from this basic policy. That must be accepted as our philosophy of life. But in all responsibility to alt inhabitants of South Africa we say: We do not begrudge any of you a place in the sun, regardless of your colour. We are going as far as is in any way possible. Take for example the question of the Olympic Games. Our Government did not say in 1968 that we were not going to participate in the Olympic Games. Our Government was not the cause of our not being able to participate in the Olympic Games. Our Government went so far as to ask the Olympic Games Committee whether we could go over and said that it would send a mixed team which would compete there under one flag. When they saw that we were quote honest in our attempt to participate, they ran away. They then hid behind the Mexican Government which said that they could not guarantee the safety of the South Africans. Then the hon. member for Pinelands comes alone and infer alia wants to lay the Olympic Games debacle of 1968 at the door of the National Party Government. I think the hon. member for Pinelands is quite wrong.

I can well understand the hon. member for Houghton saying; ”we will find ourselves isolated, and that could be very boring indeed.” I think the hon. member's bench in this House has on occasion been very boring for her. She must at times have felt so lonely, that only she would be able to understand it. Now I want to tell the hon. member that in view of the policy of her party she will be very fortunate if she returns to sit in that bench again after the next election. I want to give her a guarantee that she will never have a companion in this House.

What about Jake Jacobs?

Yes, that is also true, mind you.

The hon. member for Pinelands repeatedly tried to make politics today out of what is a very serious situation for us in South Africa. I want to take it amiss of the hon. member for having interpreted the report in Die Burger of 5th April incorrectly. I would not say that he did so deliberately, but what he did came quite close to that. He tried to interpret it by laying words in the hon. the Minister’s mouth which he never uttered or attributing to him a line of thought which he never expressed. This was to the effect that the hon. the Minister had wanted to imply that the chairman of the South African Cricket Association had not asked for mixed trials in the first instance. The matter at issue was the team with two appendages, two players who would not be selected on merit. That is what the matter at issue was at the time. What did Mr. Jack Cheetham say in the Sunday Times of 4th April? I quote—

Then he went on to say that they would not have selected those two members on merit. Then he said—

Then he said—

Surely the hon. member was not entitled to draw the conclusion he did draw from the report which appeared in Die Burger. Surely he was not doing the hon. the Minister a service by doing what he did, Then there is a further disservice he did South Africa. The hon. member took it amiss of the hon. the Minister because he was not prepared to have a cup of tea with those cricketers, and because he was not prepared to accept the social invitation. Now I am asking the hon. member to tell me what he would have done if he had been Minister and he, as a political figure, had received such a slap in the face? Would he have gone to have tea with them? As I know the hon. member for Pinelands, he would not. There are other members in his party who may perhaps have done so, but he would not. Surely the hon. member is not entitled to come along and raise that argument here, and to take it amiss of the hon. the Minister here. Can the hon. member not feel what a bad taste a demonstration leaves in the mouth of a South African? Can he not feel that if he thinks back to the Springbok rugby tour in England two years ago? If he just thinks of the fact that the cricket tour was called off when we were the undisputed cricket champions of the world as a result of possible demonstrations in England, does he not have that feeling as well? Does the hon. member not reflect on who is behind these demonstrations? Does he not think about Peter Hain? Does he not think about Oliver Tembu? Does he not think about Mathews and those people? Is that not true? Here a demonstration takes place on one of the most well-known cricket fields in our country by cricket players whom we have placed on a sport pedestal. Those cricketers adopt overseas methods, and then the hon. member reproaches the hon. the Minister because he refused to drink tea with those people. He had better be careful we do not begin asking those cricketers questions. The hon. member should not have introduced that personal note into this debate. Many awkward questions could be put to members of the two cricket teams. I am thinking for example of certain players who led the teams off. I do not want to mention their names, because I do not want to drag the names of the men who have been selected to go to Australia into this House. We can also ask awkward questions. They must also tell us why, after a few days, they were suddenly unable to remember who the instigator was at the table at which 10 people were seated. Why were they no longer able to remember the following day who the man was who had thrust this statement under their noses and who had said that they should sign it?

Are you threatening them now?

No, I am not threatening them but the hon. member for Pinelands, whom I know to be a well- known sportsman and sports administrator, must not refer to the hon. the Minister on that note and then expect us to protect the little angels who demonstrated at New- lands. The hon. member need not think that for one moment. If the hon. member now wants to drag cricketers into this House, he must realize that if he wants to play politics with them, someone is going to get hurt, and it is going to be the cricketers. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, …

Oh!

Mr. Chairman, I must say that the reception here is far better than at Ellis Park. First of all, I want to refer to what the hon. member for Houghton has said. I want to tell hon. members why I am referring to her first. I think she approached the subject in a realistic manner. I do not think that she had any political motives. She does not think that she may gain some votes for the H.N.P. at Waterberg. She just thought of the problems which are associated with sport in the world. I agree with her. There has been a tremendous change in the world in the last decade. I would say to the hon. member that this tremendous charge in the world is not only in the field of sport, but in politics as well. She must know—and I am not quoting without any record—that the secretary of the Anti-Apartheid Movement made this very statement. He indicated: We are not interested, even if South Africa opens up all her clubs to multi-racial sportsmen. That is not going to stop us. We do not mind; they can allow Ashe and D’Oliviera. They can open up their clubs. But we will never he satisfied until the Black majority rules South Africa. That is what it really is.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, the hon. member can ask me just now. I want to say to the hon. member that I think she is very naive. I think she thinks that if you solve the sports problem everything will be fine in South Africa. Does she think it will be so?

Of course not.

“Of course not,” because this is just a step in the direction that these people want to take against White South Africa. That is all it is.

It is the removal of race discrimination—that is all.

The hon. member says it is just the removal of race discrimination. She knows what it is. She herself and her party say there must be a qualification for the non-Whites. What is their reply? “One man, one vote-—no qualification!” That is why I say the hon. member is naive. I do not blame her idealism; but I say to her she has a completely wrong conception of what is happening in the world. She looks at the non-Whites with rose-coloured spectacles. That is all.

I want to say to the hon. member SANROC is one committee of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. It is financed by various bodies. I want just to read what SANROC says in its own booklet about its success against South Africa in the sporting field. I quote—

Now hon. members tell me: “Oh, it is just Government policy.” But SANROC gets the credit for it. They say they worked it out. They go around and send their people round to campaign against South Africa. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton: Does she think that if the United Party’s great policy that we have heard tonight and elsewhere is declared to the world, SANROC will say: “Thank you, boys, we are very satisfied; everything in the garden is lovely”?

Of course not!

Of course not! Their policy is a sham. They want to pretend their policy is the entrance to the world’s political favour. Let me just read how they also take credit for our exclusion from the Mexico Games in 1968. Hon. members will see why. I quote—

Does that not mean anything to anybody in South Africa? Does it not mean anything to the hon. member? [Interjections.] Let me speak to the hon. member for Houghton.

[Inaudible.]

I just want to point out something to the hon. member. She knows, and she admitted it the other day, that in Britain the M.C.C. and the English Cricket Council, when they were forced to call the tour off after battling to keep it, did not say: We will send cricket tours to South Africa and you can send tours to us if you just have mixed trials. They never said that. They said they would not have a Springbok team touring in Britain and they would not send a tour to South Africa until we had multi-racial cricket. Is that not right?

That is right.

Then they added: And the team is selected on a multi-racial basis. But they did not attack the question of a multi-racial selection of the team. They attacked the whole concept of sport in this country.

Just read what they said.

I have got it. [Interjections.] I have a lot of papers. I will sit down and allow the hon. member for Pinelands to read it. I cannot lay my hands on it at present. Hon. members are attempting again to try and insinuate that I am giving the House a wrong description of what took place. If the hon. member has it, I will sit down immediately and allow him to read it. If I am allowed to do so, I should like this to be accepted as a request to the hon. member to read what was said.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to read what stands in the Burger of 20th May, 1970, on this point. It says—

[Interjections.]

The hon. member may proceed, as I have given him a turn to speak.

I have just given the hon. member a chance to read that paper to this Committee.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister of Sport said that he gave me a chance to read the passage. I accept that. I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister a question before he proceeds.

I am quite happy to answer.

Order! Has the hon. member completed his speech?

Mr. Chairman, you see what the hon. member …

The question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister is why does he assume that this wording that I have read out means that cricket must be played in South Africa on a multi-racial basis at every level right down to club level? I should like him please to answer and to choose his words very carefully.

I will choose my words very carefully. The actual statement was submitted to me by the M.C.C. or the English Cricket Council. I also saw in the Press Billy Griffiths’s reply the other day. What it said was that it must not he multiracial cricket in the form of a multiracial trial match. He said “until multiracial cricket is played in South Africa …” [Interjections.] I have the actual extract. May I tell the hon. member that just the other day Mr. Billy Griffiths reiterated it and indicated that: There will be no tour to South Africa and no tour from South Africa to Britain until the condition laid down by the council that there must be multi-racial cricket is accepted. [Interjections.]

Does the hon. the Minister agree that the report I read out speaks of no test series between the two countries until these conditions are complied with? Is there any reason to think that has been changed?

The whole point that I tried to make clear is the fact that Britain would not play a test in South Africa and South Africa will not go to Britain until we have multi-racial cricket in South Africa. That is what the statement said. Sir, I do not know why hon. members are unwilling to believe what is read in a statement. The hon. member for Houghton knows what the position is and I can understand why she took the line she did, but I do not know what those hon. members are running away from. Are they running away from the actual words used? I want to tell those hon. members what they are doing. They are trying to twist that statement to suit their so-called policy statement.

Sir. I want to come to a matter I feel quite strongly about, which was referred lo in the debate. First of all, I want to deal with the hon. member for Pinelands and his heroics. He stated that the Prime Minister should cither kick me out, or that I should resign.

Hear, hear!

Sir, it amazes me that a party as small as that always wants to choose our Prime Minister and our Ministers of State. They have always tried to do so. Let me tell you. Sir, that while they continue to do so, they will continue to sit on that side in their little isolated group. Let me tell you another thing. Sir. When the hon. member for Innesdal spoke, a sneering remark was passed about jukskei. Let them deny that.

Nonsense!

The hon. member for Simonstown and the hon. member for Green Point did so, and now they say it is nonsense. At the time I said to the hon. member for Simonstown: “Do not sneer at jukskei.” I want to tell those hon. members that it is all very well for them to make statements at international level, and they may find it easy to appeal to people, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did at a cricketing social function in Newlands, because then they get all the applause they want, but this country knows where it stands with them. That is why they do not dare to put up a candidae at Waterberg. Let me put it to hon. members this way. Sir, you have heard blatant politics being played during the discussion of this Vote. There has been no attempt to resolve any sporting problems. I must say that the hon. member for Johannesburg North did not on this occasion directly refer to politics …

He put some straight questions which have not been answered yet

Wait a minute. I am speaking to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. The points raised by that hon. member about boxing, karate, wrestling and what he called the physical contact sports were intended for one purpose only, and that purpose was the same as that of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and the hon. member for Durban Central. Their only object was to see whether they could not give some ammunition to Jaap Marais in Waterberg. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban Central even said: “The people in Waterberg would like to know.”

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he intends answering the questions I put to him specifically.

Yes, I do, but I do not see why the hon. member should be so impatient. I have unlimited time and I am prepared to use it. The whole atmosphere of sport has deteriorated into nothing more than an atmosphere of politics. Now they have the “skynheiligheid” … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the word “skynheiligheid”.

I withdraw it. They are the ones who have the nerve to say that it is this side of the House that plays politics. They put themselves on a pedestal. Even the hon. member for Pinelands said that he would not play politics, but he played politics just like the rest of them. [Interjections.]

Order! I want hon. members to comply with the rules. If they want to put questions to the hon. the Minister, they must rise and ask leave to do so. I do not want these continual, petty interjections.

Sir, I want to refer to the hon. member for Pinelands, because I accused him here of playing politics in sport.

Hypocrisy!

Order! The hon. member for Moorreesburg must withdraw that word!

I withdraw it.

Sir, on a previous occasion the hon. member went to the Press and said in so many words that I was becoming the dictator of sport because I refused to allow a summit meeting of sports administrators to take place. I denied it immediately. I did not say that such a meeting could not take place. If they want a meeting, they can have it. They did not want a meeting like that; they wanted a meeting with the Prime Minister and myself and I said, speaking for myself and the Prime Minister, that we will not take part in that sort of meeting. I said to the hon. member that he must get his facts right before he goes to the Press and before he makes the remark that this Minister is a dictator and that this Government is a dictatorial government as far as the sports bodies are concerned. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, I listened very carefully to the hon. member’s speech in the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote. He first accused me of dirty play. I tried not to get annoyed with him, but I want to put it to the hon. member that to label anybody who has played sport as a dirty player is one of the worst labels that you can attach to a sportsman. He based his allegation of dirty play on two charges: the first one was that I had said that there must be multi-racial cricket at all levels and nobody had asked for it. I said that that was not true. He said that I had misled the people into thinking that there was a demand for multi-racial cricket in South Africa. I want to read out to the hon. member …

It is the old story.

It may be the old story, but it is a true one.

It is not what he said.

Sir, it is the basis of his speech.

Read his Hansard.

I want to read out the statement which was issued by the cricketers when they walked off. The hon. member took grave exception to the line taken by me. The statement reads—

That is what they themselves stated, followed by

They did not say that merit should be the basis on which to choose a national team in a trial match. They said that merit should be the only criterion on a cricket field. Sir, you cannot tell me that “on the cricket field” means one particular trial match.

Of course.

The hon. member for Brits, was it? said I challenged them; I called their bluff. I did not react to the statement, and you know why not, Sir? I did not think it was a bluff. I thought the whole thing was due to a little bit of ignorance of the whole position of sport in South Africa. I did not want to be nasty to the cricketers. But they must understand that they cannot make statements of that kind and stage the sort of demonstration which they did. The only people who made a great song and dance about the walk-off and supported it were the United Party and Peter Hain, and you know why Peter Hain did? Because it justified all these demonstrations that he had arranged in Britain against South Africa. That is why I was adamant that this sort of thing should not be allowed on a cricket field here,

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not read out his statement in the Argus of approximately 5th April in which he said that the cricket authorities must come and tell him whether they want multiracial sport at all levels. Does he not realize that that was not said in relation to the cricketers' walk-off, but in relation to actions of the South African Cricket Association?

No, the hon. member is quite wrong. I will tell him exactly what happened. I said that if they wanted integrated, multi-racial cricket at all levels and they then went to the cricket authority and that authority approached me, I would take the matter to the Cabinet. The hon. member for Transkei said that that indicated that I would recommend it. But in that very same statement I said that I was completely against multi-racial cricket. [Interjections.] I did. I can read it to the hon. member, if I can find it here. Sir, this is what makes me so mad. This is an attempt to distort the actual facts. In the first statement, on the question of a multi-racial team—that is to say, a team including two non-Whites who are nominated, not selected—I said that this was a direct confrontation with Government policy on sport, I said that the non-White Cricket Board was completely opposed to separate cricket. They say, like the hon. member for Houghton, that it must be multi-racial. I said that this was in direct conflict with Government policy. That was the first statement; I did not make that statement of the cricketers, they made it or got somebody to make it for them, and after their demonstration on the cricket field on the Republican Festival sport day, I felt that I was not going to be associated in any way with this cricket boycott. Sir, hon. members can argue as much as they like but that is my view, and I would do it again if the same thing happened again.

Then I come to the next point in connection with the hon. member for Pinelands. I could not believe my ears when the hon. member justified the booing at Ellis Park. He associated himself with it and he said: “I have seen referees booed, but I have seen other people booed for dirty play." I say to the hon. member for Pinelands that I did not expect that from him.

Why not quote what he said?

Sir, I heard that statement. Let the hon. member read his Hansard. In saying that the hon. member immediately associated himself with booing. The hon. member for Houghton did so as well and I said that it was just bad manners, and I mean it. I say that for the United Party to associate itself with booing of a Minister when he is there in an official capacity to hand over cups to people, is incredible. I really thought that there was a better spirit in the United Party, but this is the level that they have reached. That is why I say that now I do not put anything past them any more,

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will quote what the hon. member for Pinelands said, instead of giving his interpretation of it?

I am not listening to the hon. member for Durban Point, because I know he only springs in to try to save the situation for the United Party. I have asked for my statement and I have it now. This was a statement I made on 2nd April, after the issuing of the press statement by the South African Cricket Association. I said this:

What is clearer? And when I said this about multi-racial cricket at those levels; I said this, and I read it from the Argus —I have not got it here again. I said then again that I was not in favour of multiracial cricket, but if this happened and they came through the cricket authorities I would take it to the Cabinet. And the hon. member for Transkei said I recommended it. How could I recommend it when I said in that statement that I was opposed to multi-racial cricket? But you see, Sir, that is why I say that my position is quite clear and hon. members opposite are trying to distort it for their own use. Let me put the second charge of the hon. member. The hon. member then made a second charge of dirty play. He said: Ha, but you tell us: Did not the cricketers first ask for mixed trials and then as an alternative that there should be this nomination of two cricketers? I do not want to read a confidential document, but I will show it to the hon. member, in which it is clear that this is not the case.

Will the hon. the Minister deal with the public statement made by Mr. Coy on behalf of the S.A.C.A., when he asked the Minister to re-submit their application for trials?

I want to say this to the hon. member. He said that I was rushing to the press on so many occasions. Do you know what my reply to Mr. Coy was? He made a challenge to me; I said I was not prepared to carry on with challenge and counter-challenge through the press with Mr. Coy, but any time he liked he could come and see me. [Interjections.] No, of course I did not. I just accepted that they made the statement in the press. When they showed me the statement before publication which as I said before I regarded as a great courtesy on their part, and which was going to appear the next morning—this was in the afternoon—I said my advice to them was that I considered they should not issue this statement because it would not do cricket any good and it would not do the Association any good. And I want to know who was proved right. But they went on and they printed it. When that was conveyed to them, they said no, it would be released in the papers at nine o’clock tomorrow morning.

Was not the request by the Association for a multi-racial trial?

I have the memo which they presented to me to put to the Government. It never mentioned a multi-racial trial. It was just two nominees from the cricket union.

But before that.

Sir. I was handling the memorandum, and the hon. member was referring to the memorandum. I want to know where is this accusation of dirty play. You see, Sir, this is the situation I was facing and I conveyed this to the Cabinet. I told the Cabinet what it was about and the Cabinet said no, they would not accept this formula, and I completely agreed with them. But now I want to put this to the hon. member. I think that this idea was not a well thought out idea. I think it was unpopularly received by everybody and therefore it was not a good proposition. That is why I did not want them even to put it in the press. I said: For heaven’s sake, it is inadvisable to do so. So I say to the hon. member for Pinelands that on this issue also his accusation of dirty play has no foundation.

Will the hon. the Minister tell us whether before the request for two members, there had been a request for mixed trials?

I can assure the hon. member that I spoke to the Prime Minister about it, and the Prime Minister said to me that it had never been put to him. I remember at one stage when the cricket side was picked to go to Britain, Jack Cheetham said it was picked on a multiracial basis. I did not even go and deny it because I wanted him to succeed with the tour. [Interjections ] I am telling you the facts. These are the facts. I can even show the hon. member that extract and he can tell his colleague that I am telling the truth. That is why I take it in poor part that these hon. members can try to sow so many seeds of discord in the cricket world. I say to them that they are playing a very dangerous game. I do not deny that South Africa has a big sporting problem, hut I say to the hon. members if they think their so-called solution wil help South Africa in the international field, they are making a great mistake, because the M.C.C. said that unless South Africa played multi-racial cricket they would not receive another team from us.

Will the Minister tell us whether be had representations for multi-racial trials before he got the memorandum suggesting that two non- Europeans be sent?

You know, any representation that is made to a Minister goes with a memorandum and I can assure the hon. member that I have no memorandum in my files. That is why I then went to check with the Prime Minister and there was no memorandum calling for multiracial trials.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not reasonable to expect that Mr. Billy Griffiths, being aware as he must be of the thousands of exclusive clubs in Britain where the membership is related to file desires and the wishes of the members of those clubs, when he was referring to multi-racial cricket in South Africa did not mean multi-racial cricket in every club and everywhere?

I will say to the hon. member that if this statement had been that there was to be no tour to South Africa, or no tour from South Africa, until we had picked an international team on a multi-racial basis, then I would say the statement of the United Party is right, but he never said that.

He meant it.

How does the hon. member know what he meant? He said it in black and white and it came from the Council. He said that unless we had multiracial cricket in South Africa … [Interjections.]

Sir, these are the plain facts and you cannot get away from them. The hon. member for Houghton is right. The demand is for multi-racial sport in the world It is not for multi-racial sport with a trial match at top level to pick a top team. That is not what is asked for. The international world wants multi-racial sport in South Africa, and I want to say this to hon. members opposite, because although last year they said it must be left to the administrators, this year they say: “Leave it to the administrators at the trial level to pick a multi-racial Springbok team.”

May I ask a question?

No, I will not answer any more questions. That is what the position is. But hon. members opposite are not prepared to support multi-racial cricket or so they say. They say that our sports policy is vague, but I want to say to them that the vagueness about their sports policy is that it is not acceptable overseas. An hon. member—I forget which hon. member—said, “You tell us you will have a mixed team for the Olympics, but you will not have a mixed cricket team”.

Do you think your policy is acceptable?

Wait a minute. Let me reply. I am answering that. We firstly went into the Olympic situation and said that we would be very happy to send a non-White side and a White side to the Olympic Gaines. The Olympic body, the I.O.C., said they could not accept that, because a country is only allowed one team.

Quite right too,

Yes, quite rightly. They gave us examples. I think that, at the time, they mentioned East and West Germany as an example, although there may be a change now. We said that, under those circumstances, we would send a mixed team if that was their constitution. They said: “Yes, but do you know that they must march together?” We said: “Yes, of course they will march together." They said: “They will have to march under the South African flag”. We said: “Of course they will march under the South African flag”. They said: “They must all wear the same uniform”. We said: “Of course they will wear the same uniform”. But the Springbok blazer and the Springbok colours are for White sport in South Africa only. That is where we differ from the United Party. The Springbok colours are for White sportsmen only. When the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said that we had tried to smirch or dishonour the Springbok players, he was of course talking through his hat. What we say is that they are trying to do that. They are saying that a Springbok team must be a mixed team, but we say that it will not be a mixed team but that a Springbok team will be a White team.

What about the team that takes part in the Olympics?

They do not become Springboks.

Why not?

They have the Olympic blazer.

What are they then?

They are not Springboks. [Interjections.] They represent a mixed White and non-White team from South Africa.

Called what?

They are not called Springboks. I do not choose their name for them. They are the Olympic team.

Are they the South African team?

They are South Africans, but they are not a Springbok team.

Order! hon. members must cease these continual interjections. They do not lead to anything.

You can see that that side of the House was going to make a big issue of sport, but what has happened? It petered out. They have not got a case. I want to say to the hon. members that, as far as I am concerned, although I was quite happy to discuss matters with them privately, I am afraid I will not discuss matters with them any more.

Why not?

Because I do not trust them any more. I will discuss matters with my own people, i will talk to them and to the Cabinet. As far as the hon. members are concerned, I thought they were going to handle sport in a more responsible way. After all, it was the hon. Leader of the Opposition who said: “Sport has become an extension of foreign policy”. Those were his actual words. Subsequently he said that sport was no longer a social matter, but that it had become a foreign policy matter.

[Inaudible.]

I want to say to the hon. member that he is quite right. But then, I have always respected the Opposition for one thing: When it came to foreign matters, I thought they handled that with more decorum than they have done this debate on the sports issue in South Africa. That is why, after I had heard what I have heard today, I say that I would rather talk to my own people. If there are situations we must meet, I will meet them with my own people. I do not want to know the hon. members opposite any more; I do not want to discuss things with them privately. [Interjections.] There is the great man who always talks about having unified action on matters of defence and foreign affairs. Well, this is not an example of unified action. It has only been an attempt to exploit sport as far as they can to see politically how many people they can get to support them.

I want to come to another point.

Are you going to answer Dave’s question?

I will answer Dave’s question if Dave gets up and reminds me just now. Let me point out to the hon. members the attitude they adopted concerning the recent Arthur Ashe affair. The Government made a straight-forward statement and said that the visa application of Mr. Arthur Ashe was again considered and, in view of the fact that he was still persona non grata, his application could not be granted. What happened immediately after that?

Will you read the last portion again, please?

Yes. It says “In view of the fact that he is still persona non grata the application was not granted”. The shadow Minister of Sport then gave an interview to the Press. I have the report of it here, and only want to read a portion of it. He said—

What was the object of this? He meant, and he said it in so many words, that we should have allowed Ashe to come to South Africa. I do not know how the hon. member’s mind works. We on this side of the House would not have Ashe. This is the difference between this side of the House and that side. They would have allowed Ashe to play tennis here. Let me give the facts.

What about the Davis Cup?

Let me first finish my argument. I will reply to the hon. member about the Davis Cup in due course. He did not want to play in the Davis Cup. He applied for a visa, but was not even in a position to play in the tennis championships because it was stated by the American who controlled him that he was committed to Puerto Rico and could not take part here. It was therefore purely a political manoeuvre. All along Ashe has shown a desire to get involved with politics in this country. Ashe has shown a desire to do this. When he was in Northern Rhodesia …

Zambia.

Yes, Zambia. My apologies; I forgot about Kaunda, your charming friend. I thought the hon. member displayed some lack of courage when she would not on behalf of his wife approach her charming friend about the lorry driver imprisoned there. [Interjections,] A very charming friend, I don’t think.

Talk about the real sport.

Does the hon. member not like me having this little talk? Is he jealous? Since the last incident when we refused Ashe a visa, he made a statement to Margaret Court. She wanted to know why he had changed. He then said that he had changed because he had been threatened by the Black Power Movement that if he did not cause incidents of a political nature in South Africa by playing tennis there, they would break his tennis arm. In Lusaka he said that the political liberation of Southern Africa was his priority and that tennis was purely secondary. He also said: “I believe in the Black Power Movement” and that he admired, Stokey Carmichael, or whatever his name is, as the most wonderful man in the world. He also said: “I will go back to America and collect funds to finance any liberation movement”—which we know as the guerrilla terrorists—“in order to liberate South Africa”. And, of course, the United Party will allow him to come to South Africa. That is the difference between us.

Will you allow him as a member of a team?

I will come to that. Last year we said that if he comes in as a member of the American Davis Cup team to play in South Africa and if he comes in as an American under the control of his manager and his ambassador, as we have stipulated even in the case of communist countries, the team will get visas.

Have you?

Yes, if a communist country has to play a Davis Cup match in South Africa, they will get visas. If Ashe came as a member of an American team to play in South Africa he would get a visa. He did not want to come as a member of a team, however. He said he knew that he could come but that he wanted to come as an individual to put a crack in the racist wall. That is why we refused him a visa as an individual but said that he could come as a member of the American team.

What about a Chinese table tennis team?

Now hon. members are trying to change the subject to that of a Chinese table tennis team. [Interjections.] Yes, I must not forget the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

Do not forget me, either.

Yes, and the hon. member for Houghton as well. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Johannesburg North said the sport policy as announced by the hon. the Prime Minister will do nothing for international sport. Is that correct?

Yes.

May I ask the hon. member if his policy will?

Yes.

May I ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she is so naive to believe that their policy will do something for international sport?

Never.

Mr. Chairman, that shows the gullibility of that side of the House. I mean it. One would not think they knew anything about the problems that face South Africa.

Let me come to the dramatic questions put to me by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. He asked whether boxing teams will be selected for the Olympic Games on merit. Will a White boxer be able to box against a Black boxer in South Africa?

Reply to those questions.

I will reply to them. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, what is the matter with them? The hon. member also asked whether a Black wrestler will be allowed to wrestle against a White wrestler in South Africa. This is real stuff for Jaap Marais. The hon. member also mentioned karate, judo, swimming and all the other sports bodies associated with the Olympics. I heard what the hon. the Prime Minister said and so did that hon. member. The hon. the Prime Minister said …

What do you say?

I will tell the hon. member what the position is. But I am a modest person and I thought I would give the credit to the hon. the Prime Minister. But let me tell the hon. member for Johannesburg North what the position is. The position is that if the Boxing Association approach me as Minister of Sport and Recreation and tell me that they want to hold an open international championship in South Africa and they prove that they are inviting various people from all over the world …

No.

I am answering the question, not the hon. member for Transkei. They must satisfy me that it will be an open international event. I will not be bluffed by a little stunt that might be worked. However, if it will be an open international event, then the non-Whites can have a team, the Whites can have a team, countries from overseas can have teams, Rhodesia can have a team to take part in that event. [Interjections.]

Order! [Interjections.] Order! Has the hon. member heard me? I want to warn the hon. member that I am not sitting here for nothing. If the hon. member refuses to listen to me, I will have to send him out. Things cannot continue in this way. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, in the process of this open international event for which the body itself has to ask, we will have the situation that a White South African can box against a Black South African to see who the best man is. The hon. member is quite at liberty to take that to Waterberg, because know that is his intention. The same applies to wrestling, judo and karate. The hon. member also asked me a question about amateur soccer. He said that only amateurs took part in the Olympic Games. I say that if the amateur soccer people approach me and say that they think that amateur soccer in South Africa is of Olympic standard and that they therefore want to have an open championship in which a Black team, a Coloured team, an Indian team, a White South African team, overseas teams and a Mozambique team, if you like, will compete, then they can do so. They can then choose a team on merit which will represent South Africa at the Olympic Games, but not as Springboks. Before they can be chosen, however, they first have to satisfy me and the hon. member for Johannesburg North that they are of such a standard that they will meet the demands of the Olympic Council. As far as I know amateur soccer in this country does not have a very high standard.

You are wrongly informed.

No, I think the hon. member himself mentioned that to me. He said the professionals have reached a high standard, but not the amateurs. As far as I can see I have dealt with all the points which have been raised. If there are any other points which the hon. member would want to raise …

Mr. Chairman …

No, I want to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg North whether there are any other points in regard to which he wants information.

I just want to say to the hon. the Minister that my questions have not been answered.

What questions, then? What is the question the hon. member wants answered?

Mr. Chairman …

Order! I want to give the hon. member for Johannesburg North an opportunity to address the House, but he must keep within the rules.

Mr. Chairman. I sat down so that this hon. member could ask the question. That is the whole purpose. The hon. member wants to ask me a question and that is why I sat down, not for him to make a speech.

Order! The hon. member for Johannesburg North may continue.

I would just like to say to the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation that my questions have been to this effect and I will name them. Firstly, in order to select the best possible Olympic team, would local Whites and Blacks be able to compete against each other in South Africa in order to give the selectors the opportunity to select the best team?

The answer is that they will not be allowed to do so unless they compete against each other in an open international sports meeting. That is the answer 3nd that is the answer that was given.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! Will the hon. member resume his seat. There is ample opportunity to speak. I can no longer allow these further questions. The hon. members can rise and make speeches when the Minister has finished speaking. In those speeches they can then put their questions. Things cannot continue in this way. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I now want to refer to the hon. member for Houghton. She wants to know whether a Swaziland non-White team could play in South Africa. I would like to say to her that the circumstances of the terms on which it will play will have to be made clear to me. I, or rather my colleague, the hon. the Minister of the Interior, already gave a ruling when a match was to be arranged between a White professional Highlands Park side and a South African professional non-White side named Orlando Pirates. That was to take place in Swaziland. The Government said that game could not take place. The new factor which the hon. member brings into it is whether a Black side from Swaziland could play in South Africa.

There were two cases.

Yes, I have the other one. The reply I have just given her was in regard to the first example. The other question was whether a Black professional boxer from overseas could fight a White boxer. My answer is that I cannot see anything in any statement of policy which has been made by this side of the House that will allow that sort of thing to take place. We have fixed the bounds in the case of the Olympics. We have gone into that aspect of it and the aspect the hon. member has mentioned is an aspect which I would say has never occurred to me. Such a case has never been submitted to me. My immediate reaction is that a Black professional boxer like Cassius Clay would not be able to box in South Africa against a White professional boxer. We say it is not a good idea, because it will only create racial friction, which we are determined to keep at the minimum. That is the reason for my reply to her.

If the South African Golfers’ Union decide—and come to me—that they are going to organize an open international golf tournament, which is quite possible, my reaction will be that a non-White player can then play in that tournament. That would include Papwa.

What about Rhodesia?

I beg your pardon?

How many foreigners would you allow?

I appreciate that I cannot expect the world to come to South Africa to play in any sport. I expect that there will be many countries that will not come; but I do not accept what the hon. member for Orange Grove is trying to make out now, namely that if only Rhodesia takes part in it, that that will be regarded as an open international tournament. I say, “No, it will not be regarded by me as such”. [Interjections.] I am sorry, these are all the questions I have been asked, and that is all I intend answering.

The Minister spoke at length about our participation in the Olympic Games and how we will choose our teams. Now I want to know something. To pick a South African team—let us not call them Springboks—such as a soccer or a hockey team, to take part in the Olympic Games, do we have to arrange an international sports meeting in South Africa before we can choose our teams? We have to go to all the expense of arranging an international tournament?

Quite right.

We cannot arrange a meeting of non-Whites and Whites in South Africa for a trial match?

No.

We cannot. Suppose we have a Transkei Rugby Union. The hon. the Prime Minister told us we could have that. If they are entitled to challenge an English, Welsh, Scottish or New Zealand team, would they be allowed to challenge a White Springbok team?

Have you finished your speech?

Yes, it was In the form of a question.

Mr. Chairman, the position, as I tried to explain on the interjections, is quite clear as I see it: That it is not sufficient for a South African non-White team to play a South African White team for the purpose of a trial match to pick what they regard as the best side to play for South Africa. That is my reply to the hon. members on that side of the House. [Interjections,] Wait a minute; let me finish with one member. As regards the case which he mentioned about the Transkei, I am not aware of any arrangements which the Transkei has. Anything like that would go through the South African Rugby Board, who would report the matter to me, give me their recommendations and tell me what they feel about it. But until that happens, I am not prepared to answer hypothetical questions. I want to tell the hon. member that his colleague, who sat next to him, said in this House—and I was present when he picked out another Minister—that any Minister who is foolish enough to answer hypothetical questions put to him, deserves what he gets. I am not prepared to do that.

The hon. the Minister has been talking for an hour, and it is not going to be easy to answer everything that he said within ten minutes: but I do want him to understand that I do not admit anything with which I do not have time to deal. We will perhaps have some other opportunity to debate those points. Sir, it is very disappointing that the hon. the Minister of Sport appears to be embracing the boycott weapon more and more. We know that he boycotted several functions for the cricketers after their statement and their walk-off and now he is apparently proposing to boycott the Opposition. I trust that he will do better than that.

Sir, I want to deal immediately and very shortly with the hopes that we would have and that South Africa would have under the United Party’s sports policy. We are quite satisfied that had our policy been available to sports administrators during the period that the sports administrators have been operating under Government policy, South Africa would have been in a far happier position than it is today.

Wishful thinking.

I am quite satisfied that our policy also meets virtually all the problems of which we are aware and which our sports administrators are encountering in this regard. Since the hon. the Minister is so despondent about our policy, I would like to ask him why he has such great hopes for his policy. I presume that he has hopes for his policy, and indeed I have hopes that South Africa will be able to stay in international sport, notwithstanding this very strange policy.

Sir, I want to touch now upon something that was said by the hon. the Minister of Sport and by the hon. member for Potchefstroom. I believe it indicates that they do not understand the nature of the problem. The hon. member for Potchefstroom indicated that because they had been prepared in Dr. Verwoerd’s time to send a completely mixed South African athletics team, consisting of Whites, Coloureds and Blacks to the Olympic Games and because this had been turned down, we should therefore give up trying. Well, my first answer to that is that we are still trying and even the Government is still trying, so they cannot believe this argument completely. Secondly, the fact of the matter is that this is a fight on a broad front. No member should be under the illusion that you can fight this on a narrow front like the Olympic Games alone. This matter of sport involves our whole image as South Africans. It involves our racial policies, apart from our sport policies, and it involves the whole gamut of sports policies. It involves our attitude in every single sport, and what is so disappointing to us on this side is that after all the labouring that there has been on the other side, they have come forward with a policy which does offer practical advances in certain sports, notably the Davis Cup and in all 26 branches of Olympic sport, as I understand their policy, but in regard to cricket, rugby and soccer and other unspecified sports, they appear to be left out in the cold. I believe that this attitude of dealing piecemeal with this matter is going to be a disappointment to hon. members on the Government side and a further disappointment, if not a disaster, for South Africa. I do wish that the hon. the Minister would use his influence to try to get this policy changed.

Sir, while I am on the subject of cricket, I would like to develop my argument for a moment. The hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister have at all stages apparently taken the view that the requirements of the M.C.C. Council, as stated by Billy Griffiths, are that there should be multi-racial cricket at every level in South Africa. I certainly do not see how that construction can be put upon the words that Mr. Griffiths used. I cannot believe that the English Cricket Council which, in the words of Government members, was prepared to go to great lengths against their own government, to preserve the tour …

Not by Government members.

Yes, by Government members.

Ordinary members.

No, by Government members. If I had the time I would give the hon. the Minister plenty of quotations where they said that this council went to very great lengths in this connection. Even the hon. the Prime Minister said that in the debate on his own Vote, as the Minister will find if only he will look up the debate. I cannot believe that the English Cricket Council is going to insist on the sort of multi-racial cricket which the hon. the Prime Minister or the Minister of Sport believes is the case. I cannot believe that that is so; I sincerely hope that that is not SO, and indeed it would go against everything which, I believe, would be reasonable. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister and the Government will see what can be done in this regard and not allow their feelings and judgment to be clouded by the arguments that may have taken place between them and the former Labour Government. I think they must please keep cool heads in this regard in the interests of our cricket. The fact that all these other sports can have what are mixed trials— call them international tournaments if you like—in South Africa, and we can have mixed teams going overseas in some sports but not in others, is rank injustice. I sincerely hope that an end will be put to this.

I have so many things to ask. I want to get on immediately to other questions. In the past in South Africa Coloured teams have played Native teams both in rugby and in cricket. I also believe that each of them has played against Indian teams. May I take it that that will be allowed to continue? Does the hon. the Minister nod his head?

Yes.

That will be allowed to continue; that is something one can be grateful for.

That was said last year.

It is something one can be grateful for and I take it that this is on the multi-national principle, that they are different nations playing against one another.

Some of them have mixed teams consisting of Coloureds and Bantu.

Really, you know, I do not want to put too fine a point on this whole matter. But when you can have that example of multi-nationalism one wonders why suddenly it stops short in other regards. One asks this because the hon. the Prime Minister under the Prime Minister’s Vote made a most moving plea for international sport for our non-White peoples. He made a most moving plea. He said how much he hoped they would be able to develop their game. He was even hoping that international teams from abroad, the Lions and others, would play against these non-White teams of ours. We will therefore be asking our guests to play against our fellow South Africans which I quite understand is perfectly fine. They are South African citizens and I do not doubt that they will give the greatest hospitality to such teams that they will play. Where there may be a shortage of international sport for the South Africans as a whole the illogicality of it absolutely staggers one that apparently a line is drawn and that only certain national teams will be able to play against our Coloureds, Indians and Bantu peoples but other teams not. The logic is just not there to see.

What do you mean by “other teams not”?

Perhaps I should illustrate it this way. Professor Viljoen said in his speech, and I quote from the Burger—

Indeed, one wonders whether this is the great object of Government policy to make it possible for this very thing to happen. It is possible in principle. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands has now argued here about sports policy for the second time. Would the hon. member do me the favour of listening when I speak to him?

The hon. member must address the Chairman.

I am speaking through the Chairman to the hon. member and also to this hon. member.

I do not want to listen to you,

I think it is worth our while to argue with one another, but let us then listen to one another, as I did to the hon. member as a matter of courtesy.

What struck me tonight, was the inability of members on that side of the House to gain a basic understanding of what is involved. A short while ago the hon. member for Transkei asked the hon. the Minister a question about a matter which the Prime Minister had set out here in clear language a week or so ago. After all, we are gathered here as responsible people. If we are now to waste the time of the House by discussing matters over and again, matters which we have after all tried to explain to one another, I do not know where we are going to land.

What is your reply to my question?

The hon. the Minister gave the reply to the hon. member once again. Now he still does not know what it is. I think the hon. member for Transkei should do his homework. I want to come back to the point on which I ended the previous time I spoke, i.e. the implications of …

Oh!

Yes, the hon. member has reason to sigh, for I am coming to his policy. I want to come back to the implications of the policy which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition announced recently. May I say, further to what the hon. member for Pinelands suggested, i.e. that this side of the House had caused sport to land in the political arena, that it is illuminating that for the first time a political leader chose a sports meeting for the purpose of making a political statement of policy. To me this is very significant. It was for that reason that I made this appeal to the hon. member for Pinelands, namely that whereas they had access to certain branches of sport, such as cricket, for making statements of policy, they should take this opportunity to indicate in cricket circles where their foolish steps would lead to. I expected them to take this opportunity to do so.

I want to start with the hon. member for Johannesburg North. He said that the policy which had been announced by his Leader would open up the world to us. The hon. member is a prominent sports administrator and he is the president of the South African Soccer Association. The hon. member knows that soccer was one of the first branches of sport in respect of which South Africa lost its international affiliation, in this case with FIFA, the Federation of International Football Associations. The hon. member knows that we lost our affiliation because of the same point on which the hon. member for Pinelands argued here with the Minister. The reason is not that we do not want to send a mixed team abroad, but that we are not prepared to extend the playing of mixed soccer in South Africa to club level.

That is not true.

It is true. If not, the hon. member should prove the contrary to me.

I shall do so in a moment.

I want to ask the hon. member whether the policy which his Leader announced in regard to sport, professional soccer, etc. will result in our being readmitted to FIFA. I am asking the hon. member that question now.

I shall reply in a moment.

Very well. I hope the hon. member will give me a reply to it.

When the hon. member for Pinelands spoke, he disputed the statement made by the hon. the Minister that in effect Mr. Billy Griffiths’ statement on cricket meant that mixed cricket should be played down to club level. He disputed that.

They would not agree to inter-racial cricket; it has to be multi-racial.

Therefore it had to be quite mixed at club level.

On merit.

What does “on merit” mean? The hon. member says “on merit". How does one determine merit?

The best players in the country.

Of course! Where are the players drawn from? One draws them from the top, not from the bottom. It is clear to me that the hon. members have not thought these matters over. I now want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands, even if his interpretation of the standpoint of Mr. Griffiths were correct, i.e. that they would be satisfied with mixed trials on the highest level only, whether he has ever thought of the implications of mixed trials, when the trialists are drawn from people organized into separate national groups up to national level?

How are you going to compose an Olympic team?

I want the hon. member to think for a change before he opens his mouth. Think with me about the implications of mixed trials, when people are drawn from bodies which have been organized quite separately. Suppose there are 20 or 30 White cricket trialists. How is one going to determine how many of them there should be?

How do you select your Olympic team?

Suppose that there are 30 Bantu players and that such a team is eventually selected purely on merit. Have hon. members opposite ever given any attention to the focal points which may develop in our domestic race situation if the team were not selected the way Mr. Howa, to be specific, wanted it to be selected? Have they ever given further thought to what the implications would be in the host countries visited by such a team if trials were held on the highest level and a team were selected on merit, but if, again on merit, no non-Whites or too few non-Whites were included in that team? Has the hon. member ever thought what consternation this would give rise to in the international world? He does not want to think of it. That is my problem with members of the Opposition. It is the implications which we should consider fully, and that is why I say that I see no merit whatever in the statement of policy made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I believe it was merely an attempt to meet outside demands.

Outside demands?

Yes. I say this because—and the hon. member for Durban Point and that hon. member will make it clear outside—the United Party is not giving up separate sport on provincial and club level. They are standing by it. They are going to propagate it outside and they are going to be proud of it, irrespective of the words of the hon. member for Pinelands in regard to so-called progress. What, then, is the objective of hon. members opposite? Why are that hon. member and his Leader not prepared to give up the idea of sport in our country being played separately on dub and provincial level?

How are you going to select the Olympic team?

I shall speak to the hon. member about the Olympic team, but will he, when I am in the process of arguing a point with them, grant me the courtesy of trying to think about it with me?

I have never seen anybody flounder so much.

Order! And I have never come across so much disobedience.

Fortunately I know of the hon. member’s floundering years before he came to this House. That is the failing amongst hon. members opposite. They are simply not prepared, but it is their intention to retain the position of sport being practised here on a basis of separation. They are making this concession in respect of countries abroad. If they want to draw the line right through and they cannot give any satisfaction as to the method of selection on merit, or even if teams were selected on merit but non-White sportsmen were excluded, have they ever thought of the repercussions that would follow?

I do not understand what you are trying to say.

I understand it very well. Time and again I have had the experience tonight that members here are incapable of understanding what they ought to understand.

You do not understand what you yourself are saying.

Our sport is in difficult circumstances, and we appreciate that fully. The only possible way to keep sport going and to afford every person in South Africa the opportunity of competing on the highest level, is to do so in its national context. No ceiling will be placed on it. Our non-Whites will also be afforded the opportunity of building up ties through their own initiative and under their own steam, as our White sports bodies have already done, and to develop in that process their own pride and their own feeling and, in that way, their own happiness as well. That is the happiness which one only derives from being amongst one's own people in one’s own group. Then they will escape from the situations in which many of our non-White sportmen find themselves today. They are quarrelling amongst one another, because some of them are listening to the call going up from that side of the House. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Stellenbosch tried very valiantly to come to the rescue of the hon. the Minister. I want to say that I sympathize with him to a certain extent, because he truly had a very difficult job to do. He also put certain question to me which I feel I must answer before I carry on with my speech.

He did mention the question of the policy of the Nationalist Party and that of the United Party. I will presently very logically compare the policy of the Nationalist Party with that of the United Party, Secondly he made mention of the fact that the South African soccer body was kicked out of the international body because we do not play multi-racial soccer at every level in South Africa. That is entirely untrue. I want to say to the hon. member for Stellenbosch that if we could select a fully multi-racial soccer team purely on merit, we would be allowed back into FIFA. I happen to have had the privilege of trying to put South Africa’s case at the international body. I will never forget that when I tried to put our case, I was asked a very pertinent question by a delegate from Black Africa. He said that I had put a fairly strong case, but that he would like to ask me one question and depending on this answer, he would then decide whether or not to vote for South Africa’s re-admittance. At that time Pelé was the best soccer player in the world. He also happens to be a Black man. This delegate from Africa asked me whether Pelé could be selected to play for South Africa in the World Cup if he were from South Africa. I had to bow my head and say “no”. That is the true story of how South Africa was kicked out of international soccer. I think I will let the matter rest there. I think that answers that question very well indeed.

I did say that I would match the Nationalist Party policy with that of the United Party in an objective way. What has the Government’s sports policy done for South Africa? Firstly, it has almost completely isolated South Africa in almost every field of international sport. This is true. Secondly, it has been used as a platform to trigger outside political attacks against South Africa, so much so that when it was announced that this Government was against the sending of two non-Whites to Australia, Mr. Peter Hain’s comment was that it really seems that Mr. Vorster was now on their side. The hon. the Minister of Sport does not understand that the narrow-mindedness of their sport policy has given people like Peter Hain and Sanroc the opportunity to beat us. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that there is a world of difference between the Sanrocs and the Peter Hains and the responsible world administrators of sport. I say this advisedly because I have spoken to many of them. Let me tell hon. members that they do not want multi-racial sport on every level in South Africa. What they want is that if a man is good enough to represent South Africa in sport on merit, then his colour should not come into account. This is a perfectly logical request, because in the outside world they play multi-racial sport. Their teams are selected on merit and not on the basis of colour. They maintain, rightly or wrongly, that in South Africa our teams are selected on the basis of colour and not merit. Thirdly, the Nationalist Party's sports policy has for the first time in the history of this country caused sports demonstrations in South Africa. This is a very sad occurrence and I do not want to argue the merits of it. But it is a direct result of the Nationalist Party’s policy.

Let us look at the United Party policy. Under United Party policy we say quite openly that, in the first place, the playing of sport and the administration of sport should be left to the sportsmen. Let them decide against whom they want to play. Let them decide whom they want to invite to play in South Africa. We are quite open on this matter. As far as we are concerned, we would be quite happy, if it was requested from us, to see multi-racial sport being played at international and national level. We do not bide this away; we say it quite openly. We say, too, that we do not yield to anyone on that side when it comes to our desire to maintain the traditional conventions of South Africa. We do not yield to any one of them. Secondly, we say we will allow multi-racial trials in South Africa so that we can be certain that the right teams are selected. Look what we have had from the hon. Minister of Sport. He did not answer a single question which I put to him. He tried to skirt around it, and believe me, this has gone on record. Either he does not know what the policy is, or otherwise the policy is a big sham. We also say that mixed international teams will be allowed to come and play mixed teams in South Africa.

On provincial basis?

Oh, come off it!

We say that we will leave it to the sportsmen and if it is necessary to relax certain legislation, at the request of the responsible sports administrators, we will do so. If you look at the two policies, believe me there is no basis for comparison. Our policy is a straightforward, realistic policy which …

Is it unconditional? [Interjections.]

We were told by the hon. the Prime Minister that his new multinational concept of sport was to give the non-Whites an opportunity of playing international sport. Let us have an objective look at what the non-Whites think of the hon. the Minister’s sports policy. Here we have an article which was written by Mr. Maluli, and it is called, “The Window of the Townships”. This gentleman, an African, quite obviously has a wonderful opportunity of getting a cross-section of opinion amongst the Africans. He says:

He goes on to say:

This is from a Black man. Then he goes on to say:

There we have it. That was the opinion of the people whom the Prime Minister professed he wanted to help. Let me say something to the hon. the Minister. My colleague, the hon. member for Pinelands, has moved that the hon. the Minister of Sport should resign. Traditionally, as hon. members know, this is something which is done very reluctantly by any Opposition. It is never done …

You say this every year.

It is never done until very careful consideration has been given to the matter. I want to say I hope … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to follow up the argument advanced by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. He analysed the sports policy of his party, and I should like to know from him whether he has ever heard of the former Springbok cricketer, Owen Wynne.

We all know him.

This is what Mr. Owen Wynne said—

Is that correct?

Yes.

This report of what was said by Mr. Owen Wynne goes on to say, and I quote—

[Interjections.] Sir, they said that it was correct. The report on Mr. Owen Wynne’s standpoint goes on to say the following—

This is what was said by Mr. Owen Wynne, and those hon. members agree with it. [Interjections.] They said they agreed. The report goes on to say—

Now I want to follow the hon. member for Johannesburg North in analysing the sports policy of his party. This Mr. Owen Wynne is a member of the Progressive Party and one of the mouthpieces of that side, and on the strength of the report I quoted and the admission which those hon. members have just made, it is proved once again that in the sphere of sport, too, the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the hon. member for Houghton, who spoke earlier on tonight, are still room-mates. And they cannot hide it. I want to analyse further the policy of the hon. member for Johannesburg North by saying that it is exactly the same as the policy of the hon. member for Houghton. It is Progressive Party policy, for the following words are used, “Integration down to club level”. That side of the House cannot get away from that.

Sir, those members tried to draw comparisons between their party's sports policy and my party’s sports policy. What is the position on the local relations level? The National Party’s policy is clear: No mixed sport up to national level. We are quite honest about that. This eliminates friction to the maximum, and no member opposite can get away from that. Let us now analyse the policy of the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who, with his progressive ideas, is so close to the hon. member for Houghton. His policy is a “provided-provided” policy provided this happens, that will happen. There is uncertainty about the fundamental question of integrated sport, and they could not refute that in this debate tonight. They contradict themselves. We have now heard from the hon. members for Pinelands, Durban Point and Johannesburg North; all we heard, was contradictory statements from beginning to end. There is no consistent line running through their arguments. The uncertainty displayed by that side of the House gives rise to the door being opened to agitation and racial friction. I want to say this openly to those hon. members tonight. In terms of my party’s sports policy there is fairness to the sportsmen themselves, sportsmen from all the various national groups. In terms of my party’s sports policy it has now been made possible for sportsmen to reach the highest national level while retaining their own identity; this applies to the non-White peoples as well. This is the privilege which the non-White peoples are being denied by that side of the House, for all they suggest, is an ad hoc addition of two cricketers, irrespective of merit, just as long as they are Brown. I want to suggest tonight, at the end of this debate on sport, that with their sports policy that side of the House are doing an injustice to both White and non-White sportsmen. Non-White peoples are not recognized by that side of the House. Non-White sportsmen are handicapped and they will remain handicapped. Furthermore, this will always give rise to agitation flaring up. I blame this entire cricket episode, which we experienced and which met with a response all over the world, directly on the actions of that side of the House. They will not get away from that.

Nonsense!

Sir … [Time expired.]