Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill emerges at the Third Reading as a greatly improved measure compared with that which we had presented to us at Second Reading. The Committee of the House has adopted various amendments which were suggested by this side of the House, and which were supported by hon. members on the Government benches. I believe that the fact of mismanagement in the past directed attention to the necessity of providing precautions as far as possible to avoid mismanagement in future of this Fund. Some of those precautions are now embodied in this Bill. The amendments which we now have in this Bill which is before us at Third Reading, and the improvements which were embodied in the Bill which came to us at the Second Reading, may be summarized as follows.

Firstly, there is now a more realistic approach to the limits of compensation which can be paid under this particular Act in respect of physical injury sustained as the result of the negligence of the motor driver. Secondly, I believe that the period of 90 days for the presentation of claims is a provision which will greatly assist the settlement of claims before litigation is embarked upon. Thirdly, I believe the statutory obligation, in the legislation now, upon the MVA Fund, to meet claims for damages arising as a result of injuries sustained at the instance of unidentified or uninsured vehicles, in place of the previous optional undertaking of responsibilities, is also an improvement. As regards the administration of the Fund, the Bill has been amended in the Committee Stage, and it seems now that there should be no reason for any mismanagement in future, because overall authority is now vested in the Secretary for Transport. He and not the manager is now the accounting and responsible officer for the MVA Fund.

Secondly, there is now embodied in the Act what we on this side of the House requested in 1969, namely that there should be a limit on the type of litigation in which the manager could be involved; in other words, only litigation arising out of direct claims against the MVA Fund in regard to unidentified or unlicensed vehicles. Thirdly, I believe that the appointment of an advisory committee which in the past was an optional committee in terms of section 25 (D) of the old Act, and is now compulsory is an improvement in that the Minister is obliged to appoint that committee which has two functions; firstly, to be consulted by the Secretary for Transport and, secondly, that it can mero motu, of its own volition, make recommendations to the MVA Fund and to the Secretary for Transport. I will come back to that a little later.

The fourth improvement which the Minister has now accepted is the one that the accounts should be subject to the Controller and Auditor-General with the result that annual statements will be tabled in this House. The hon. the Minister, in considering this Bill and its effect in connection with solving the problem which we encounter with motor vehicle insurance, has given us certain undertakings. We shall therefore look forward to his findings and decisions in this regard. Firstly, he has given us the undertaking that the consortium will no longer be ipso facto a closed shop and that he will consider on merit applications from other insurance companies for admission into the consortium. We shall in due course ascertain from the hon. the Minister whether such applications have been submitted, whether there are further companies who would like to participate in this consortium, and what decisions have been taken in regard to those further applications.

The second undertaking is an important one, the one which the hon. the Deputy Minister gave us when this Bill was in the Committee Stage. He said that he would consult with the Treasury as to the most advisable method to invest the funds of the MVA Fund. When I say the most advisable, I have in mind the most advisable in the national interest. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Transport is present this afternoon, because in the Committee Stage we pointed out that the investment of these funds which is now in the discretion of the Secretary, on the advice of this committee, can contribute substantially to the economic welfare of the country. Fifty million rand is not a small sum of money. That could be invested, as was suggested, after discussion with the Treasury and with the colleagues of the hon. the Minister in the Cabinet, with building societies. If such a decision is to be taken on principle, the hon. the Minister will understand what a great impact such an investment will make on the problem of housing in South Africa.

I believe that the primary consideration of the investment of these funds should be the interests of South Africa and not necessarily the highest possible interest earning basis of investment. The hon. the Deputy Minister gave us the assurance that he would have these discussions with the Treasury and I hope that that will be followed up, and I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Community Development, if he was here this afternoon, would agree that an injection of R50 million into building societies for possible housing loans in South Africa would do a great deal to alleviate the housing shortage in this country.

The third undertaking which the hon. the Deputy Minister gave was that he would give consideration in the framing of regulations in terms of this Bill to provide that insurance companies when making offers of settlement against a claim which has been submitted to them, will make their tenders under the heads of the initial claim. In other words, if they accept a loss of earnings in toto, that should be stated. That, of course, is a matter with which the hon. the Minister will be able to deal under the regulations in terms of this Bill.

I believe that there are still further matters which require investigation, matters which I believe may well be submitted by the Secretary for Transport to the advisory committee. I mentioned before in the course of this debate that motor vehicle insurance is in effect a social security measure to compensate individuals for physical injuries sustained in accidents. However, that definition is not complete. I believe that there is still a great deal of hardship in the fact that a passenger, other than a fare-paying passenger, is not covered by this insurance in the event of the driver of the car in which he is travelling being found to have been negligent. I believe that there is a great number of cases of hardship where people travel with another person, not as a fare-paying passenger, where the driver is negligent and those persons who suffered injury are not able to recover compensation. I believe that that is a matter which can well be submitted to this committee for advice to see whether that is not perhaps a defect in this law, a defect which could be rectified.

The second matter is the question as to whether one should go over to some system of assessment of compensation as is done under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. This again is a possibility for investigation. The hon. the Minister of Transport shakes his head. I am not wedded to it, but I wonder whether it is not a matter which should be considered.

The third matter I want to suggest, a matter which is one the compulsory committee may well discuss, is whether this token premium system is really necessary. I want to look at the actual work assessment involved in the application of this Act. At the present moment, according to figures of June, 1970, there are 2 247 000 motor vehicles on the road in South Africa. That means roughly 2¼ million. The operation of this Act in its present form is that 2¼ million notices must be sent to owners that their third party insurance is due. Then 2¼ million payments must be processed by various companies which receive the money and receipts issued, and 2¼ million discs and declarations of insurance must be issued. It does not need much imagination to work out the man hours, the working hours, that are involved in that procedure: the notice when the premium is due, the receipt of the premium, the processing in the issuing of the disc and eventually the forwarding of those discs to the insured individuals for the individual vehicles. The premium income under the Bill as it is now is something approximating R30 million per annum. We find that working through insurance companies commission is paid to collect this compulsory insurance, and I emphasize “compulsory”. People must take it out, but there is still a 5 per cent agency commission paid to the agents of the insurance companies. It is a sum of R1½ million. The administration expenses in total, according to replies by the hon. the Deputy Minister, are something like 22 per cent of the total revenue, that is an amount of R7 million per annum. I believe that this statutory committee under clause 6 (3) (a) of this Bill should be charged immediately to have a look at this position. We must endeavour to eliminate this unproductive waste of time and energy on paper work to implement this form of cover, this form of social security. I believe that we must eliminate inroads into the contribution of the insured to the extent of 22 per cent of what he pays. R2 of his R17 goes in administration expenses and not towards the meeting of compensation. Twenty-two per cent is a heavy figure. I wonder whether the time has not come that this committee, under clause 6 (3), should not think of the possibilities of the establishment of a State corporation, which could deal with the payment of compensation arising out of motor accidents. I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Transport will agree with me that such a corporation could function probably on the commission only that is being paid at the moment, an amount of R1½ million per annum …

Manpower.

It would mean a tremendous cut-down on the amount of work that is being done now. Every consortium company is duplicating what could be done in one centre.

That has been considered, but there is a big shortage of manpower.

I agree that there is a problem. I am coming to the next point. If one eliminates the processing of 2¼ million application discs and if a corporation can handle the payment of compensation—it probably can be done on a 5 per cent commission basis, which is now being paid to agents—it would mean a saving to the motorist of something like R5½ million on the present basis, or as I say, an average of R2 per vehicle at the present rate of motor insurance. How is the Fund to be financed if one is not going to process? I believe serious consideration should be given by this committee as to whether or not the motor vehicle insurance cover should not be financed by an excise charge on petrol and diesel, that is on the consumption of fuel. After all, the motorist who uses his car once a month at present pays the same, subject to size and area, as the man who has a car on the road 24 hours out of every 24 hours. The man who uses his car once a month does not create the risk that the man who is using his car 24 hours a day creates. If this insurance were to be funded by excise duty on petrol and diesel, it will mean that the man who uses the road the most, the private motorist, the commercial motorist or the heavy vehicle owner, as the case may be, would be the one who would contribute the greater to the central fund. I believe that this is a matter that needs consideration. He who introduces the major possibility of accident, who introduces the greater risk by the greater use of the road, should pay the greater amount towards the provision for security. I mention this to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister who will now have a compulsory advisory committee, able to consider this I know that it is a bonanza for the insurance companies at the present moment; it is a bonanza for the insurance companies at the expense of the motorist to the extent of roughly R2 per motor vehicle to the insurance companies who accept no risk whatsoever. The risk is with the MVA Fund and not with the insurance companies. I therefore believe that serious consideration should be given to this matter in the interests of the motoring public. They should be relieved of that charge which, as I have said, is a bonanza to the insurance companies. In the past they accepted the risk and were entitled to their profit margin. Now, under the present system, they have an agreed figure which is paid to them to cover administration and I have indicated to the House that I do not think that the hon. the Deputy Minister himself would require 22½ per cent of the R30 million to administer the claims which arise under the MVA when dealt with by a State corporation. I also believe that the incidental costs, delays and litigation would be reduced considerably.

We support the Third Reading of this Bill, and hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give thought to placing these matters before the committee for serious consideration and perhaps to indicate to the House later whether this is not a line of thinking which might well be accepted in the interests of the motoring public in South Africa.

Mr. Sneaker, the hon. member for Green Point first of all made the point that they appreciate the fact that I accepted amendments on their suggestion. I want to remind him that the hon. members on the other side had quite a few amendments on the Order Paper, but they did not consider them worth while to ask for a division. The amendments that were accepted during the Committee Stage, were either amendments moved by myself or by my colleague, the hon. member for Bloemfontein West. It will not serve any purpose for them to try to take the kudos for those amendments.

The hon. member went further and again mentioned the question of mis management of the Fund. There is a Police investigation and if the hon. member knows of any instances of mismanagement, he is quite at liberty to make his allegations to the Police who are busy with the investigation. He is at liberty to make the accusations and allegations to the Police officers who are busy with the investigation.

Why is there a Police investigation?

Because the hon. the Minister and I ordered it.

But why?

It is not because of mismanagement of the Fund, as I have already pointed out during the Second Reading debate.

Then the hon. member makes the point that it is now not going to be a closed shop. In other words, other insurance companies will now be allowed to become part and parcel of this.

But their applications will be considered on merit.

I pointed out to him that the Act provides for that. But in the same breath the hon. member said that insurance companies were deriving a bonanza from this scheme. The hon. member then pleaded for a State corporation which will be a closed shop.

*But one cannot blow hot and cold at the same time, after all. The United Party is still running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. In the first place they made the accusation that we have a closed shop here because other insurance companies are not admitted. They said this during the Second Reading debate and in the Committee Stage. I pointed out to them that the Act provides for this and also that the agreement ends in 1976. Furthermore I pointed out to them that we have the consultative committee which consists of six members of the insurance companies, who are appointed in rotation, and that it goes without saying that such applications will be considered by this consultative committee and that they will make recommendations to the Minister. In the first place they point out that the insurance companies are now making too large a profit, namely 22 per cent from this whole insurance scheme. Then they ask that other insurance companies should also he admitted. But the next moment they say it should be turned into a corporation. I want to point out that we have 16 different insurance companies in this consortium in South Africa, with branches and agencies all over South Africa. If we were now to consider turning third party insurance into a State enterprise or a corporation, it would mean that we would have to provide the same staff and the same office facilities in the remote corners of South Africa. But I want to give a second example as well. The hon. member for Green Point points out that there are 2¼ million declarations, i.e. the discs, and says that this entails a large amount of paper work and unnecessary administrative work. But his party suggested yesterday that it should be compulsory for the insurance holders of these 2¼ million declarations to keep them for two years. Surely that would mean still more work. In other words, the United Party did not prepare their arguments properly.

I want to deal with a last aspect now. I told the Committee yesterday that I would investigate in regard to advice on the investment of the fund. I also told the Committee that the senior Deputy Secretary for the department, the accountant, the manager of the fund and the Registrar of Financial Institutions are advising the Secretary for the department in regard to investments at the moment. On this advice the Secretary then makes his submission to the Minister. The request of hon. members was that the Treasury should also be represented here. In keeping my promise I had an interview only yesterday afternoon with the present Registrar of Financial Institutions, who happened to be in Cape Town. He is a member of the Treasury. He put it to me himself that he was already representing the Treasury in this regard in view of the problems which the Treasury has in respect of the investments of a certain institution, in order to assist the State machinery. Consequently I am satisfied that this is being complied with.

The next matter put by the hon. member was the question of non-paying passengers of vehicles, who are not covered by third party insurance. If I were to open that door, I should be opening a door to the pirate motor vehicle organizations. I am just mentioning this because I want hon. members to consider what would happen if I were to open the door to nonpaying passengers of motor vehicles who do not have third party insurance.

If they are there legally?

No, they are not there legally.

[Inaudible.]

Very well. Actually it is difficult to expose that pirate motor industry. Because this is the case, it is a problem which I shall first have to investigate thoroughly before I can consider ever opening such a door.

With that I should very much like to thank hon. members, particularly on this side, who took part in this debate with well-considered and well-prepared contributions, not only in the Second Reading debate, but in the Committee Stage as well. I want to thank the hon. Opposition as well for the interest they took in this matter, with the assurance, as I said in the previous debate, that there is nothing wrong with this fund, and that we are saving the owners of motor vehicles, the payers of motor vehicle premiums in South Africa, a minimum of R41 million over this period as a result of this Bill which the Minister has introduced to render a service to South Africa.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third time.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment:

In the Bill the word “sponges” I believe has a very limited meaning. A “sponge” could be a defined area, but I propose to delete the word “sponge” and to substitute the word “sources” because a “source” could be a sponge without the adjacent catchment area leading on to the sponge. I feel that the Afrikaans text is quite in order, but the English text is too limited, and therefore I propose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to clear up one point with the hon. the Minister. I may say that we welcome his amendment, because it widens the area which is now brought under his control as regards this matter of the removal of trees growing in natural water courses. I have been engaged in this matter for a long time; on one occasion when the hon. Minister of Sport was still Minister of Forestry, in relation to some of the farmers in my area in High flats and on a later occasion when I called upon the hon. the Minister when he was Deputy Minister in relation to the water controlled area at Nyambubu, the Nyambubu catchment. The problem arises now that those areas have been planted. The trees in some cases are 30 to 40 ft. high. If the Minister now has the power, as he has in terms of this clause, to require people to remove trees, how is he going to control the position and ensure that erosion does not take place in areas which are steep and which have been afforested? He may well find that in trying to protect the water sources and the runoff of water, he is going to create a far greater problem than the problem created by having trees growing in those areas. I wonder whether the department has done any research in this regard and whether they have taken steps to find out how they can safely remove trees, particularly gum trees, which are not easy to remove. In these instances areas such as old farms have been bought and they have been planted, and areas which should not have been planted, areas which we understood the Minister would require not to be planted, have in fact been planted. I would welcome a statement from the hon. the Minister as to how he intends approaching this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this clause, because I feel it is quite drastic legislation which is before this House now. If the Minister or the Secretary were to refuse to grant permission to a person to plant trees on a farm, this servitude, according to the clause, would pass on to the owners in title. For this reason I feel that this is a very important measure, but I am convinced it is an essential one. I nevertheless want to ask the Department of Forestry to consider demarcating such areas so that the farmers will know that a certain area falls within a region in respect of which the Minister is not likely to give permission for trees to be planted there. The whole problem of restricting afforestation is a difficult matter.

The proposed section 4A (1) (b) deals with mountain streams. On the one hand we have mountain streams surrounded by indigenous trees, and I do not believe anybody would want to interfere with those mountain streams. However, in my constituency one finds areas where non-indigenous trees, for example poplar and wattle trees, are encroaching on these natural mountain streams. To my mind it should be laid down that only certain types of trees should be removed from river-beds. I wonder whether it would be possible, in terms of this legislation, to make exemptions, because indigenous trees could only fulfil a useful purpose by providing shade and preventing soil erosion. In this way the course of the river is protected.

On the other hand, we have cultivated plantations, and here I foresee problems as well. One often finds that these plantations have been established right up to the banks of a stream; however, streams do not run in a straight line; they follow a winding course. For this reason and because one plants trees in a straight line when cultivating plantations, one has a process of give and take. Often the trees are planted quite close to the stream and when this happens, the trees may cause damage. I can foresee problems, in particular as far as the smaller streams and the small tributaries of rivers are concerned. Sometimes it may be very difficult to determine where such water courses are. Sometimes these water courses traverse marshes and vleis, and in those cases it is particularly difficult to distinguish between the water course and the course of the river. For that reason I wonder whether the Minister should not consider appointing local committees which will be able to give advice in determining the actual course of such a river and the real source from which the water originates, because I can foresee that even a court would find it difficult to determine precisely where the course of a river is.

Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with the hon. member for Mooi River as regards the question of the substitution of grassland, for instance, by wood-lots or plantations. May I say, Sir, that we can forget about trying to manage catchment areas without first having conducted the necessary scientific research and without proper catchment management. The idea is to have proper management. In this instance, where wood-lots or plantations may be removed in future, something must have been in that area prior to the planting of the trees; either it must have been good grassland, or it might have been an eroded area. If it was an eroded area, it can be converted into grassland. The point is, however, that we shall have to have proper management. The idea is to provide the management with proper guidance and to have scientific research.

*The hon member for Humansdorp mentioned the courses of small rivers which may get overgrown. This is quite correct; courses do get overgrown by various kinds of vegetation. Such vegetation may consist of vegetation created by Nature itself but something which has occurred particularly in recent times is that such courses get overgrown by wattle trees. This is a kind of vegetation which can be established everywhere, and the seeds are washed all over the place. The course of a river can therefore get overgrown. If we would be in a position to enforce this Bill, we would lay down regulations and we would be able to control the situation. It would then be possible for all the excess covering growth in watercourses to be removed. This is the idea. It is also a fact that some of these river-beds are deliberately planted with trees, particularly poplar trees used for the manufacture of matches. This type of tree is planted in vleis and uses a lot of water. It is not only where people act deliberately in this way that a watercourse gets damaged; even Nature itself contributes to this. Hon. members have most probably noticed that the entire courses of rivers on a farm become overgrown by the common poplar. They grow so densely as to be quite inaccessible. The banks of the river become overgrown to such an extent that even floodwaters are prevented from getting through. This is the type of thing we want to prevent through this legislation. The idea is to act now in regard to those parts of our major water areas which are not covered either by the Water Act with its water controlled areas and catchment controlled areas or by the Forestry Act, in terms of which we control the mountain catchment areas. There is an interim stage, viz., those areas in respect of which control cannot be exercised either in terms of the Water Act or the Forestry Act. With this amendment we now envisage to control those areas as well. In other words, we are thinking of areas throughout the country where there are courses we should like to open up and protect. This will give the department the opportunity to exercise such control.

Mr. Chairman, now that the hon. the Minister has replied to those two questions, I should like to raise a further point. I want to deal with the proposed section 4A (1) (a). The hon. member for Mooi River has said that we accept the hon. the Minister’s amendment, to omit “sponges” and to substitute “sources”. I have had a chance now to study yesterday’s Hansard, Sir, and that is why I come back to paragraph (a). The position seems to be that there are areas where the Minister, practically as a matter of policy, can say: “In those areas I shall not permit afforestation to take place on a widespread scale”.

On a commercial basis.

Yes, on a commercial basis. The Minister can say: “I want to prevent afforestation of that character, where widespread areas are planted with trees, because of the detrimental effect it may have on run-off, and so forth”. Then, on the other hand, we have the situation that the department is encouraging growers, small planters, wood-lot planters, and so on, to the extent where the State advances money to them for the purpose of planting trees. We therefore have the State advancing money to encourage people to plant trees, and we have the Minister with the power to say: “You shall not plant trees in that area”. So the first point I want to put to the hon. the Minister is this: We suggested that there should be a limitation on the amount of land where this could be forbidden after an application to the Secretary. If the Secretary receives an application in respect of land of less than 50 acres, we suggested that the Minister should consider an amendment allowing such an application to go through. The Minister apparently does not want that in the light of yesterday’s debate. We start then with the department saying on the one side, “We don’t want afforestation on a commercial scale”, and on the other side saying, “We will lend money to farmers who want to plant trees on a commercial scale”. The first point I want to put is whether it will be possible for the Minister’s department, not now or even, within a few months, to put up a forestry plan showing the areas broadly, in South Africa, where he is going to forbid the planting of trees. It is going to stop people in that area from coming along and asking for a permit, or considering the buying up of large areas of land to put under trees, when the plan shows that that is an area in which, in general—because there may be exceptions, a patch here and a patch there—the Minister is going to say that he is not going to allow commercial plantations in that area. Such an overall plan, I submit, could be of great value, but it might take a year or two to complete. The Secretary for the department has been the chairman of, I think, two commissions which inquired into rainfall, water conservation, forestry and so forth, and no doubt his department would be well equipped to undertake the preparation of such a plan. Sir, the second point is this: My Hansard indicates that the Minister did not understand the question that I put to him last night, and I want to put the question to him again: In those cases where the planting of trees is not forbidden, where the Minister is permitting it in terms of the Government’s policy to encourage it, is he still going on with the advancement of moneys to tree planters in those areas where he wants to encourage tree planting? Can those farmers still look forward to getting loans with a view to planting trees if their land is in an area which the Minister has not set aside as a forbidden area for the planting of trees?

The answer to the second question, of course, is “Yes”. There will be a promotion of the planting of trees in areas where we want to promote afforestation in general. As to the first question, I fully agree with the hon. member that there should be an indication as to where we are going to have our forests and where we are going to forbid afforestation. We are trying to do it the other way round by putting up a plan showing where we want afforestation. The hon. gentle man has suggested that it should be done the other way round and that we should rather say where we are going to permit afforestation. I think it will amount to the same thing. It may be an idea—and I will think it over—to give an indication where we are not going to allow any commercial afforestation.

Those areas will be smaller, I submit.

Yes, they will be smaller. Does the hon. gentleman understand the position now; is he satisfied?

Yes, but I would like to know whether your department is proposing to prepare such a plan.

We are, of course, preparing an afforestation plan, which is called the “priority plan”; this is a priority afforestation plan for South Africa. That is why I say that we are doing it the other way round; we are going to tell the people of South Africa where they should plant trees and not where they will not be permitted to plant trees.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch made a speech here yesterday which most certainly did not deal only with sport. It was clear that speech delivered by the hon. member was aimed at the election in Brakpan.

Never! I was replying to the hon. member for Pinelands.

Because my time is very limited, I am not going to reply to the political statements made by the hon. member. In the annual report of the Department of Sport and Recreation, mention is made of two very successful international sports meetings. They were the golf tournament in Johannesburg and the athletics meeting here at Green Point. Then, of course, there were the very successful Federation Cup Tennis Championships at Ellis Park in Johannesburg. I believe that the success of these sports meetings indicates very clearly that South Africans, Whites and non-Whites, welcome mixed sport on international level.

What about club and provincial levels?

In addition, I believe that the interest South Africans showed in those sports meetings proved once again that South Africa is a nation of sport-lovers, a country which, in spite of its relatively small population, has produced sportsmen and sportswomen of world standard in every sphere of sport over the years. I am sure that all of us, regardless of our political convictions, should like to see our sportsmen and sportswomen appearing on the sports fields of the world. If this is so, and I cannot believe it can be otherwise, the question with which White South Africans are faced it whether we want our international sportsmen to be selected on the basis of merit henceforth or whether we want to be completely expelled from world sport. I realize that it may well be a very difficult decision to take, but under the circumstances it is a decision which we shall have to take nevertheless. That decision must be frank, clear and unambiguous. The world outside cannot understand any longer, and they are also becoming tired of the indecisiveness of the Government’s sports policy. Let me put it like this. Our traditional sporting friends select multi-racial teams. Their teams are selected on the basis of merit. In their opinion, our teams are selected on the basis of colour and not merit.

But surely you can correct them.

We know that a policy like that is no longer acceptable in modern society. Countries abroad simply do not understand the twisted logic of the Government’s sports policy. I am sure that if they really thought about it, few South Africans could understand the sports policy. I go even further; I doubt whether the hon. the Minister of Sport himself understands the sports policy of his Government. If he does understand it, he must be fully aware of what the Government’s confused sports policy holds for South Africa. Surely the hon. the Minister must realize that the obstinacy of the Government by persisting with a policy whereby mixed teams may not represent South Africa abroad, may mean the end of sporting ties with the outside world. In my modest opinion, the decision we shall have to take, can be very clear and simple.

And it is integration.

Leave the playing and control of sport to the sportsmen; let the people who promote and control sport in South Africa, say whom they want to select and against whom they want to play. This is the realistic policy of the United Party. It is a policy …

Of letting things take their own course.

It is a policy by which we stand and one we have formulated because we have the fullest confidence in the people controlling the various kinds of sport in South Africa. It is a policy we have formulated because we know that White South Africans are not so weak that contact with non-Whites in sport would overthrow Western civilization in South Africa.

Forget about Howa; give us your personal opinion.

When we discussed the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Sport here last year, we on this side of the House out certain pointed questions to the hon. the Minister. I am sorry to say that up to now the hon. the Minister has not replied to those questions. Since we are discussing the Vote of the hon. the Minister once again today. I want to request him to give us an explanation of the Government’s sports policy. He should tell us where the logic is to be found in a sports policy which makes provision for mixed participation on the athletics track, the golf course, the tennis court, the boxing ring, and even on the wrestling mat, but under no circumstances on the cricket field. We know this is so, because recently a few White cricketers who wanted to take part in a special farewell match for the non-White cricketer Basil D’Oliveira, were refused a permit.

Was it an international match?

When that permit was refused, the hon. the Minister told us that the Government’s policy did not make provision for mixed cricket in South Africa. The hon. the Minister should also tell us how it is possible that a person such as Arthur Ashe may visit South Africa as a member of an American tennis team, but not as an individual, and that a Negro golfer, such as Lee Elder, may in fact come here as an individual. He should also tell us why it is possible that a mixed team may represent South Africa at the Olympic Games, but that eleven cricketers may not play in Australia if a few non-Whites are among their ranks. These are the questions to which the hon. the Minister must reply. I want to conclude by appealing to him that he should bring his influence to bear on the Government so that our sports policy may be amended so as to make it possible henceforth for all kinds of sport in South Africa to select their international teams on a basis of merit.

Mr. Chairman, if one now really wants to know how confused the thinking of that side of the House is in respect of sport …

You do not know what it is all about.

Do give me a Chance, because surely the hon. member has had his chance. I shall deal with him in a moment. If one wanted to know how confused their thinking is one only had to listen to that hon. member, who is not only a member of that side of the House, but also the big boss of amateur and professional soccer in South Africa, and one would have heard him allege that we would be driven out of international sport unless we concede to mixed sport taking place at international level. In the same breath the hon. member advocates what I objected to yesterday, i.e. that we should play mixed sport not only at club level, but also at unofficial level.

Special matches.

Now the hon. member is calling them “special matches”. The hon. member will first have to clarify his thinking and orientate himself and his party before he can come along and criticize this side of the House.

I want to come back to the point I was dealing with yesterday and about which the hon. member is now reproaching me. He is reproaching me for the fact that I take the strongest exception to the hon. member for Pinelands intimating that there is discrimination against cricket and soccer. I stated that there was no discrimination against them. All that happens is that the people in control of those two bodies allow themselves to be led by the nose by the United Party.

You are talking rubbish, and you are very well aware of it.

I now want to deal with the hon. member who says I am talking rubbish. The hon. member for Johannesburg North will now have to decide once and for all whether he is the big. boss of amateur sport or professional sport.

Both.

But you are a smart fellow.

Of both, therefore. Do hon. members see what happens? The hon. member for Pinelands appealed to the fact that the same rules applying to Olympic sports should apply to the other kinds of sport. The hon. member falls between two stools. He is the big boss of amateur sport and professional sport as far as soccer is concerned. The hon. member knows that the Olympic Games do not allow professional sport, professional sport in which the hon. member is perhaps interested, apart from other reasons, for the money that is to be made out of it.

What about golf?

I now want the hon. member to clarify the position for himself. For the sake of that sport he must …

May I ask a question?

No, my time is limited and therefore I am not prepared to answer a question. The hon. member will now have to adopt a standpoint in respect of those two sports bodies. He must decide for himself whether he is an amateur sportsman or a professional sportsman. Yesterday the hon. member for Pinelands also referred to cricket. He naively pleaded ignorance of the MCC having stated that there would be no tour exchanges with South Africa unless mixed cricket were played right down to club level. I say that yesterday the hon. member pleaded ignorance of such a situation, and that is the position. The hon. member will have to swot up on that matter.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

My time is limited. The hon. member said, inter alia—

That is specifically the reproach I levelled at hon. members yesterday. Under the influence of United Party politicians certain sports bodies make certain decisions. Here, as a result of a number of demonstrators in Australia, the South African Cricket Board decided that we should ask the Coloured Cricket Board to select two Coloureds—not on merit, but just to make an impression on those demonstrators, whom they could in any case not satisfy— to go along with the team. I therefore wish to state that I want to relate this matter to the debate that took place here late yesterday evening. I want to relate it to the fact that the members on that side of the House are prepared to yield to the pressure of small minority groups that want to force themselves upon another country; they are also prepared to allow this to be forced on South Africa in respect of sport.

In spite of what that side of the House came along with, the hon. the Minister and his department have every reason to be proud of the administration of their department and the promotion of national and in-international sport and then include a uttered in the past, there have been more mutual international spots tour exchanges between South Africa and countries abroad in the past two years than ever before. I want to tell the hon. member for Johannesburg North that this is so not because of his specious arguments, but as a result of the Government’s adopted standpoint that in our sports policy we do not claim solely for the Whites the snobbistic right to play international sport and then include a few non-Whites here and there just for bluff; ours is a policy which gives the non-Whites—whether Bantu or Coloured—the opportunity of reaching the highest rungs of international sport. Thanks to that policy we are today in the position of having a greater interchange of sportsmen than in the past.

Was that Verwoerd’s policy?

It was also the policy of Dr. Verwoerd. I want to tell that ver-krampte hon. member that Dr. Verwoerd’s policy was one of not begrudging another person what one demands for oneself.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on the international meetings here at Green Point and elsewhere, and also on the tennis meetings, which have been referred to and which, thanks to the active organisational assistance of the officials of his department, were a great success—and this is not always blazoned forth in the newspapers. I want to go further and say that if we look at the annual report we see that the activities of this department are extended annually, and in spite of the lamentations from that side of the House, the demands for the help and activation of this department are continually increasing. In spite of the criticism of that side of the House, the demands upon the services of the Department of Sport and Recreation are becoming ever greater.

I do not want to keep the House any longer and I want to conclude with a request to the hon. the Minister about which another hon. member will also speak further. I am referring here to the position of the Association for Physical Education and Recreation, which previously published a fine technical periodical called Vigour. Many of the hon. members on that side of the House, and also the hon. member for Newton Park, will remember it. He and I have spoken about it before. With the rise of the Department of Sport and Recreation the subsidizing of this wonderful technical periodical supporting not only physical education, but also sport, fell by the wayside because there was no clarity about whether the subsidizing should be done by the Department of National Education or by the Department of Sport and Recreation. In the light of the tremendous role which physical education plays as the foundation for the development of sound bodies and sound sport and recreation in this country, I want to advocate that the subsidizing of such a technical periodical be considered once more.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to what the hon. member for Stellenbosch said, I should very much like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the department on the department’s dynamic growth which radiates from this annual report. It reflects a dynamic growth from year to year, and I should very much like to mention a few aspects in this report before I come round to the Opposition.

It is stated here that so much more is being done in respect of coaches’ courses for athletics. In the past five or six lean years it was, in particular, Major John Short, previously of the South African Air Force, and a member of my constituency, who very actively began with the dynamic propagation of coaches’ courses. Today we can see the result in this report. An increasing number of our Springbok athletes are coming to the fore at national and international level. It is a trend we can only hope will be very profitably continued. Then I should like to express in this House the thanks of our athletes for the guidance which Major Short is giving in this connection in co-operation with the department.

In the report mention is also made of the youth vacation courses being offered by the department. A very important reference to this appears on page 11, i.e. that in the cities people are working increasingly less and seeking more and more recreation. Whether I personally like this reference to increasingly less work or not, it is quite simply the present trend that people work less and less and have more and more free time. For this reason it is a good thing that the Department of Sport and Recreation is giving attention to this aspect, particularly in order to take our urbanites into the rural areas and bring them into touch with nature. I notice the absence in this report of the name of an association which does very good work throughout the country. I very humbly want to put to the Minister that the department and this association should make contact and make use of each other’s services. I am now speaking of the National Ornithological Association, or to give it its more popular name, “The Bird Watchers”. In Pretoria there is a very active branch. This association not only holds very interesting evenings with films and colour slides for members … [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite may laugh since they do not know what they are laughing about. This association frequently goes out on excursions into the countryside and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to bring about closer contact with this association.

I now want to come to hon. members opposite, who now sit here laughing. I have just asked the hon. member for Umhlatuzana here next to me: Is this a good annual report of a good department or is it not? I am also specifically asking the hon. member for Simonstown: Does this report reflect growth in our sport or not? I want to ask the hon. member for Wynberg if there is any politics reflected in this report, yes or no? [Interjections.] That is the negative reaction we get from hon. members opposite. It is the typically negative reaction in connection with sport we get from that side of the House. With the Opposition it is not a matter of sport, as clearly illustrated in the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands and that of the hon. member for Johannesburg North. One hon. member speaks here about the Broederbond. Last year it was one mournful argument from beginning to end, and this year the hon. member strums the new Broederbond note. In spite of all the mournfulness and pessimism with which hon. members opposite approached this debate last year, seeing only darkness, what subsequently happened? Athletics is simply flourishing and our young people are coming to the fore in every sphere of sport with one internationally acclaimed achievement after another.

There was Brenda Kirk and Pat Pretorius who placed the seal on the good work which emanates from our sports policy, with excellent displays in the Federation Cup series. There are too many names to mention in the compass of a short ten minute speech. But what does the Opposition do meanwhile? They launch personal attacks ad nauseam on the Minister of Sport merely for political gain and they wrangle ad nauseam because the National Party does not want to yield to their pressure for the integration of sport, particularly soccer and cricket, at club level, because that is precisely what their representations throughout the afternoon have amounted to. One can only listen to the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Johannesburg North, and then read the speech the hon. member for Houghton made in this debate last year, to realize that they are one and the same speech through and through. If one strips these speeches to the very bone one sees that the only issue involved is that of complete sports integration.

That is rubbish Sarel.

Sir, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central says “rubbish”. The hon. member said it must be left in the hands of sports administrators. Last year Owen Williams, the cricket player, said—and I quote from Hansard (col. 6691)—

Hon. members said that is correct. It is their policy. But, Sir, we pointed out that this Owen Williams is a Progressive.

Yes.

There the hon. member for Houghton confirms it. What did Owen Williams say in conclusion? He said—

That is exactly what it is. Sir, with these hon. members it is not a matter of sport. My national electorate sent me to this House to come and state the views of White sportsmen and sportswomen in this House. That is what my White Afrikaner people sent me here for. As far as the non-Whites are concerned, channels and means have been created for them by their department within their national context to play their sports there, as they are doing, and as it is their positive right to do. At international level the Government’s sports policy has created the ways and means for them to participate internationally. We do not begrudge them the fact that they should maintain their position in the sports world without relinquishing their identity. But what do these hon. members come along and ask? They blatantly come and ask that my rugby players and my net-ball people should integrate in my town right down to club level. [Interjections.] They clearly asked for it.

This hon. member for Johannesburg North asked for it again this afternoon. I now want to say here that with this attitude on the part of these members and the attitude of that hon. member for Houghton towards our sport, they are playing directly into the hands of those international bodies who are kicking us out of sport at international level. They cannot get away from that. They must take note that the youth of South Africa, the young athletes, rugby players and cricket players are not interested in that. We know that they are only exploiting sport for political gain for that party. [Interjections.] It is as plain as a pikestaff. I repeat that for these hon. members, with their permissive sports policy, it is not a matter of sport, but of cheap politicking through and through. Our young sportsmen and sportswomen in the country will not allow themselves to be caught by such wishy-washy tactics as these.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I should like to say to the hon. member for Pretoria District that he does not understand the United Party sports policy at all. We said that on the international level South African teams should be selected on merit. We did not speak of any integration at club or provincial level, and we shall not allow it. [Interjections.]

Actually I want to come to the hon. member for Stellenbosch. I want to say to him that in the course of his speech yesterday evening—he repeated it this afternoon —he referred to my hon. friend, the member for Johannesburg North. He said, inter alia, that he was the soccer chief. He went on to ask whether he was the chief of professional as well as amateur soccer. The reply he received was “yes”. Then he made the cutting insinuation that my hon. friend was involved in soccer for the money he could make from it. I want to place it on record that this hon. friend of mine, the member for Johannesburg North, serves soccer in South Africa in an honorary capacity. If the Nat mentality cannot comprehend this, I want to emphasize that my hon. friend makes no money from soccer. I just want to say that an insinuation like that is unworthy of this House.

†When this new sport policy was announced with great fanfare not by the hon. the Minister of Sport, but by the hon. the Prime Minister last year, it unexpectedly backfired, as so many other half-baked Nationalist policies have backfired, such as job reservation, the myth of White unity and also the Bantustan policy.

This sport policy is the retarded child of the unholy alliance of the “Verligtes en die Verkramptes”. We all remember Dr. Verwoerd’s Loskop Dam speech, when he enunciated the Nationalist Party’s principle of not allowing mixed sport in South Africa. This Government has compromised this Nationalist Party principle and, as could be expected, they have satisfied nobody. Like the curate’s egg, their sport policy is only good in parts. Our sports administrators are very much at sea. They do not know what the implications of this policy, with all its ramifications, are. Questions have been asked of the hon. the Minister of Sport, and he has consistently evaded them, as he did in the days of yore when he played rugby for South Africa. He takes a gap, he hands off the questions and never gets to answering them. This Government has leaned over backwards in its endeavours to accommodate non-White tennis players, athletes, and golfers, and non-Whites were welcomed as members of visiting rugby teams; we know that there are whispers of mixed boxing and mixed wrestling being allowed, and yet this policy has failed in its primary target, namely to get South Africa back into world sport.

Once again South Africa is debarred from competing in the Davis Cup Competition. Our projected rugby tour to New Zealand is in jeopardy. South Africa has not been invited to attend the Olympic Games at Munich later this year. The reason for the world’s attitude is clear. They view the Nationalist Party’s sport policy against the background of racial discrimination as practised by this Government. What justification is there for allowing these non-White participants in athletics, in tennis, golf, or in visiting rugby teams, but to bar them from cricket and soccer, from table tennis and swimming, for instance?

*When the hon. the Prime Minister announced the sport policy, he said the following (Hansard, Vol. 33, col. 5031)—

Sir, if we are in fact invited to the Olympic Games—and the Prime Minister said it would be a multi-racial team representing South Africa—does it mean that the Whites would not be able to represent South Africa, but that a multi-racial team would be able to represent South Africa? Is this the disgrace which has come down on the heads of our White sportsmen through this Government? To which members of the Olympic Team would Springbok colours be awarded? To the non-Whites, because they have now been included to represent South Africa, or to the Whites? And then, Sir, if the present Native reserves developed into independent Bantustans, would each of the sport teams of those Bantustans, the Xhosa, Zulu, etc., have the honour of representing their Bantustan internationally? What would the position be if sportsmen of the Republic had to compete against them; which team from the White Republic would represent the White Republic? Would it consist only of Whites? The hon. the Prime Minister said they could not represent their country. Would it be a mixed team, or would it be a Coloured Indian team? We must have clarity about these uncertainties which this policy has created. Then, of course, we must know which of these members of the team, representing the White Republic of South Africa, could receive Springbok colours. Sir, this policy of the Nationalist Party Government is so illogical that it would have been the biggest joke of this so-called third dynamic decade of the Nationalist Party Government had the consequences of it not been so extremely tragic for South Africa. Not only does this sport policy deprive the Whites of South Africa of the privilege of representing their fatherland in international sport, but it has also failed to open the door for us to world sport.

†Why does the hon. the Minister of Sport not assert himself and inform his Cabinet colleagues in no uncertain terms that this Broederbond-concocted sports policy is a dismal failure? Why does he not have the courage of his convictions to admit that the United Party policy is the only one which gives the formula for which South Africa is waiting? The hon. the Minister knows that the successful multi-national sports activities practised in this country did not harm our traditional way of life. He knows, too, that the selection of our international teams on merit is the only possible criterion which the world will accept and which will allow us to compete against world teams. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, who has just sat down, said, inter alia, that the (policy of the National Party in respect of sport was so confusing and illogical that nobody could understand it. Sir, I wonder if that hon. member remembers this old saying: In the mind of a confused person, the simplest idea becomes involved. The hon. member referred to the hon. member for Pretoria District and alleged that he did not know what the United Party’s policy was. He said the United Party would give South Africa the opportunity of receiving mixed teams here and of sending mixed teams abroad. But that hon. member does not know his own party’s policy either. Sir, I want to refer to the Hansard of 2nd April last year, column 4996, where the hon. the Prime Minister read out the statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—

And then he went further—

Consider what? Finish the quotation.

To consider whether the United Party would allow it. The hon. member there …

Show your courage and read the rest of it.

The hon. member suggested that South Africa was isolated in the sphere of international sport, but surely that is not true. In 1970 28 visits were paid to South Africa by international teams, and in 1971 38 overseas teams visited South Africa.

That was after the new policy had been announced.

In 1970 South Africa sent 14 teams abroad, and 15 in 1971. The hon. member said a moment ago that I was not prepared to quote further from what the Leader of the Opposition had said. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said they were prepared to consider it if the sporting bodies requested it. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will not satisfy the international world with that. The international world does not want integrated sport only; the Opposition ought to know that; they want integration in South Africa at all levels, including Governmental level. Sir, yesterday in his speech the hon. member for Pinelands came forward with I do not know what; I do not know whether he was launching an attack on the hon. the Minister; I do not know whether he was launching an attack on the department, or on the Government or on the Broederbond. As the main speaker of the Opposition on sport, the hon. member came forward with no alternative idea for solving the problems with which South Africa has to contend at the present time. Sir, I think it is only right— and we on this side of this House should like to do so—that we should express our thanks and appreciation to Mr. Hoek, the head of this department, and to his officials for what they are doing to keep South Africa in the international picture as far as sport is concerned, and for the outstanding way in which they are succeeding in this.

Sir, I should like to say a few words this afternoon about a sport in South Africa which is probably one of the best, cleanest and most healthy in South Africa, and that is swimming. I think there are few kinds of sport which can compete with swimming in the fame it has brought South Africa. In this regard I should like to mention the names of people such as Joan Harrison, the gold medalist at previous Olympic Games, Anne Fairlie, Katinka Germishuys, and the brilliant swimmer Karen Muir, who was not only a formidable swimmer, but also a sportswoman par excellence. To a very large extent, swimming in South Africa is recreational. I think it may also be regarded as one of the most balanced and complete forms of exercise to be found in recreation. But, Sir, although South Africa has achieved so much fame from swimming as a sport, swimming as a recreation has also led to much grief. In Die Vaderland of 13th January, 1972, an article appeared in which it was mentioned that in the summer holidays of 1971-’72, at least 100 people had drowned in South Africa. From 1959 up to and including 1970, according to available statistics, no fewer than 4 683 people lost their lives in South Africa through drowning. This figure does not include the Bantu; the figure of 4 683 is made up of 1 456 Whites, 2 805 Coloureds and 422 Asiatics. If the number of drownings since 1961 is added to this figure and an estimate is made of the number of Bantu who drowned in the past 13 years, one may safely say that in the past 13 years, approximately 10 000 persons drowned in South Africa. Sir, apart from the tragedy these drownings involve, they represent an enormous economic loss in human life we cannot afford. The main reasons advanced for these drownings include, inter alia, the fact that many of the victims could not swim and, secondly, a discernible lack of fitness among our people. One is grateful for measures taken in respect of the compulsory fencing off of swimming pools and for the prohibition on swimming in certain waters. But unfortunately this is not a complete solution. South Africa, with its extensive coast-line, its dangerous rivers, its numerous dams and its thousands of swimming pools, offers exceptional scope for enabling our people to swim, and although no statistics are available, some experts approached by the department were of the opinion that only approximately 20 per cent of all White children between the ages of four and ten years can in fact swim, and furthermore, that of the total White population of South Africa, no more than 30 per cent can swim one length of a swimming pool. And if one takes the Bantu into account, the figure in this regard is possibly not even 5 per cent. I think the time has arrived for very serious consideration to be given to motivating South Africa to become conscious of swimming. The same water, for which, fortunately, we were able to inspire a love last year by means of having the Water Year, can also be a source of great concern and grief to us if this problem in respect of drownings is not solved. One is very grateful because the department has decided to include swimming as one of the tests in its national fitness scheme. This new section will probably be launched at the end of the year, firstly, in order to make our nation aware of the value of physical fitness, and, secondly, to contribute towards teaching the masses to swim. But we should like to ask the Minister to give very serious consideration to having time set aside in the adventure courses, the youth holiday courses as well as the centralized coaching courses in swimming which are offered, in which some of these people may be trained in teaching a child to swim. I think this swimming campaign should be launched on a national basis in South Africa. We can include many departments in this, for example, the Department of Defence, the Department of Police and the Department of National Education. We should like to advocate the launching of a co-ordinated scheme not merely in order to make South Africa conscious of swimming, but also in order to create the opportunity for people to be trained in how to teach a child to swim. We know it would cost a lot, but in the light of the economic value these people have for us, one would also like to raise for consideration the idea that our provinces consider providing the schools with heated swimming pools in the winter terms in which the children may be taught how to swim. I believe that when all these things are done, we shall be able to look forward fruitfully to South Africa achieving even more fame in the international swimming pools.

I must say the hon. member for Bethlehem ended his speech on a far more amenable note and I want to support him in all his representations on behalf of the swimming fraternity in this country. I must agree with him that our swimmers have in the past, and I am sure will also in the future, bring renown to our country in the international sphere, if they are allowed to do so by this Government. That is the important point to which I will come back in a moment. I support the hon. member but I must say that I believe he did not go far enough because we have had in this country an outbreak—a rash, almost—of private swimming pools in everybody’s backyard and I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister and his department to assist those people who are trying to teach young children, babies from the age of 18 months to two years, to swim, to try to prevent the tragedies we periodically have in this country in those private swimming pools. There are these movements in the towns and if he and his department can do anything to assist them, I am sure that the public of South Africa would appreciate it; because swimming is not only a sport; it does not only have its sporting characteristics but it is also essential for certain people in order to save their lives in emergencies.

But I want to come back to where the hon. member for Bethlehem started. He, together with other members opposite, have accused us of being an integrationist party and we are getting tired of hearing this parrot cry, but the crux of his argument is that all we are pleading for is integration of sport at club level and only through this do we believe that we will get anywhere in South Africa in regard to international sport. But does he not know that we have already had a visit from a non-White tennis player? I refer to Yvonne Goolagong. We have already had a non-White rugby player, Bougarel. We have had a non-White golfer, Lee Elder. We have had mixed athletics meetings in South Africa already. We have had mixed tennis trials in South Africa, and do not forget the non-White jockeys who have visited this country. We have had this athletic meeting at Green Point. Where is the mixed sport at club level? It has already happened in this country, and we do not have it at club level, so how can he say that that is what we want? Does he accept it as a logical extension of the policy which has been carried out by that Minister? Because we have had all these mixed sports meetings, must we now extend it to club level? Is that what he believes is the logical extension of their policies? That is exactly what he is saying, that if the country carries out what we are suggesting (and that is that our international team should be selected on merit), if it is the request of the controlling body, that we must get down to mixed sport at club level? If that is the case by logic, that must be the logical extension of his own policy. He must not argue this sort of nonsense. This is just purely playing politics. We have had the case of a non-White caddy beating our amateur golf champion, John Murray, the other day. Does this mean he is now to play integrated sport at club level? That is what this hon. member is suggesting. He must be logical in his discussions. It is no good coming with that sort of nonsense.

I want to come back to my hon. friend from Pretoria District, who is unfortunately not here at the moment. Really and truly, the number of times that this hon. member has given me reason for fun and reason for satisfaction in this House! I must say that I appreciated his plea on behalf of the bird-watchers of South Africa. I believe that there are branches in every major city throughout the country and I believe that at almost any time of the day you can see meetings of the birdwatchers’ clubs being held on the corners of Adderley Street in Cape Town, on the corners of Commissioner Street in Johannesburg, and on the corners of West Street in Durban. I believe it is time that the hon. the Minister assist these clubs to amalgamate into a national union and I would suggest that they take as their symbol blondiferous miniskirtus in full flight. [Interjections.]

I think we could combine swimming at Clifton with that.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is going to help the swimmers at Sandy Bay. Perhaps he might assist those swimmers as well. Perhaps my hon. friend from Bethlehem would like to join those swimmers at Sandy Bay. [Interjections.] I am sure he would like to help them, because they are swimmers.

What about Graaff’s pool?

The hon. member for Stellenbosch, who also is not here …

Why do you not get on with your speech?

The hon. member for Stellenbosch referred to the fact that the South African Cricket Association had asked that Coloureds should be allowed to form part of the team that was to go to Australia. I want to take the hon. member to task for doing what Nationalist speakers will do over and over, not only in this House, but outside as well, and that is that they establish a false premise and then build a case on that false premise. I want to say that his case must fall because of the false premise which he establishes. How dare he say that the Coloured or non-White cricketers who would be asked to join the team to Australia would not be selected on merit? On what authority does he make such a statement? He is not here, but perhaps his Minister can answer on his behalf.

Cheetham himself said that.

He never said that.

I do not believe that the statement of the hon. member for Stellenbosch is correct. I am prepared to go so far as to say that the hon. member for Stellenbosch ought to have known it was not correct when he made the statement. [Interjections.] Perhaps the noisy back-bencher there might answer this if he gets a chance to speak and tell us how he dares make such a statement that they would not be selected on merit, because this is what the hon. member for Stellenbosch said.

We have come to a stage in sport in South Africa today where we are reaching the cross-roads, where something is going to have to happen. We have had the abortive attempt last week-end to form a multiracial cricket association in South Africa, abortive only because Mr. Hassan Howa of the Coloured Cricket Union pulled out. However, I believe this was a step forward. I believe it was a step in the right direction, especially when you consider what was reported in yesterday’s newspaper of an interview held with Basil D’Oliveira in England—

And then we had Mr. Howa, after his return from the Johannesburg meeting, making a similar sort of statement saying that this was why he had not joined with the Whites and the Bantu in this cricket union. I want to draw the attention of the House to a statement made by Mr. Howa in December, 1970, when he said—

In those days he accepted this situation.

Who said that?

Mr. Hassan Howa. This is what he said in December, 1970. It appears that he has changed his mind and that he has gone back on this. This is also substantiated by the statement by Mr. D’Oliveira in England. I want to say to all sportsmen and women in this country, whether they are White or non-White, that the time has come when we have to stop playing politics in sport. If we are sincere, if we are honest, and if we wish to play mixed sport, let us say so and do it on principle, and let us be honest about it. To the White sportsmen and women in this country I want to say that the time has come when we have to stop paying lip service to this. Let us stop trying to ride back into the international arena on the backs of the non-White sportsmen and women in this country. I believe this is doing a disservice to sport generally in this country. It is not helping the matter, it is not helping the non-Whites and I do not believe it is helping South Africa in the international sphere. If the unions will be honest, as I believe happened in the soccer sphere when they voted overwhelmingly for selection of international teams on merit …

What did the hon. member for Johannesburg North say in September last year?

Yes, he said it last year.

Mixed down to club level.

He never said it. If that hon. member can prove that statement I am prepared to apologize, but I am prepared to say to him now that that statement was never made, the statement that we would accept mixed sport down to club level. This was never the case. The point I am making is that we have to be honest. Let us take politics out of it. I want to remind the hon. the Minister of a statement which he made in December, 1970, when he said that he would listen to the administrators if they had the authority of their associations. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister, when the leaders of the associations come to him, will listen to their representations and accept them.

Mr. Chairman, I think you will agree with me that there is no one in this House who has more to say than the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, but I think that you will also agree with me that there is no one in this House who can talk greater nonsense than that hon. member. The hon. member said today that this Government must stop dragging politics into sport. None of the three speakers on the United Party side have so far said one word about the positive steps taken by the hon. the Minister and his Department of Sport and Recreation. All they have tried to do is make a political issue of everything they said.

With reference to what the hon. member for Pinelands said yesterday evening, i.e. that cricket in South Africa is being neglected, I want to refer him to the fact that over the week-end three cricket control bodies met to establish a joint body for promoting cricket in South Africa. Mr. Howa, the president of the South African Cricket Association for Coloureds and Indians, was not prepared to co-operate with the White cricket association before, he said, Springbok teams playing cricket here and overseas were selected on merit only. The hon. member for Johannesburg North also said here that sports teams should be selected on merit only. From this I must deduce that this standpoint of Mr. Howa is based directly on the intercession of the United Party which states that sports teams should be selected on merit only.

On an international level, man. Can’t you understand that?

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, who is kicking up such a row, looks very fit, but I think he is fit from dancing—dancing to the tune of his father-in-law. He knows nothing about sport. He is one of those who want to drag politics into this matter. He should have listened to what the hon. member for Johannesburg North said in this House today. He said in regard to the special meeting to which the hon. member for Stellenbosch referred that exceptions can be made. Surely that meeting was not held on an international level. Then the hon. member for Johannesburg North went on to say that sport should be left in the hands of sports administrators. The hon. member is himself a sport administrator and he advocated today that sport should be kept out of politics and that it should be left in the hands of the sports administrators.

I should not like to comment further on hon. members on that side of the House, but I should like to join the hon. member for Stellenbosch in a plea which he made here. Today I also want to make a plea for a matter which is felt as a great need in the field of sport, recreation and physical training. We are all aware of the fact that owing to our way of life, eating patterns, over-weight problems and the attendant diseases, as well as the social problems which arise, physical training and organized sport is becoming a facet of greater importance which we dare not neglect. A technical journal with a scientific approach to this and related problems, and which can furnish guidance over a wide field, is very necessary. The hon. member for Stellenbosch referred to the former Department of Education, Arts and Science with its Adult Education Division which published a magazine, i.e. Vigor which subsequently disappeared. He advanced the reasons for that. This was a wonderful magazine which provided factual knowledge and a medium of communication in regard to physical training and sport. This magazine enjoyed international recognition and to the student, the physical training teacher, the coache, the sportsman and sports administrator it made a fundamental contribution. Under the present circumstances such a publication is very necessary. In any case, we have far more to offer today, in the field of research as well. This statement is supported by the fact that many South Africans are being approached to make contributions at international congresses in this sphere. The subject of physical training has during the past number of years assumed a completely new content, course, and form. A new syllabus for girls has just appeared which will revolutionize the presentation of the subject. A new syllabus for boys is being compiled. A technical journal in which new ideas can be discussed and opinions exchanged is imperative in this field. At present our universities have better research facilities and staff that will make a far greater contribution in the sphere of sport research in future. Recently, during a symposium at Stellenbosch, a national council for scientific sports coaching was established with the object of promoting scientific research in the field of sport. Without a good technical journal to distribute the findings, such a task will be almost impossible and its efficiency will be hampered. Therefore I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Stellenbosch today and advocate to the hon. the Minister and the Department of Sport and Recreation that they give very sympathetic consideration to re-establishing such a technical journal, and that this department will help with its financing. We also request the hon. the Minister to have his department bring the Department of National Education, which deals with physical training, as well as the Department of Health, into this, as well as the following associations when it comes to the establishment of such a professional journal: The South African Association for Physical Training and Recreation, the Federation of Youth and Snort and the Olympic Games Committee. There is today an urgent need for such a technical journal amongst sportsmen and women, among coaches, sports administrators and sports researchers. If it is possible for such a journal to make its reappearance through the efforts of the department, it could serve as a means of communication in the sphere of sport and physical training and it could make a great contribution to a healthy South Africa.

We are living today in a world where strenuous physical labour is being replaced to an ever greater extent by the machine. The human body which needs a great deal of exercise in order to function well, is playing an ever more passive role. Most people today have more leisure than ever before in the past. I should now like to quote from the annual report of the Department of Sport and Recreation.

Whom are you quoting?

That hon. member should give his vocal cords less exercise and get more exercise outside, then he might perhaps cut a better figure in this House. I want to quote the following from the report of the Department of Sport and Recreation:

In modern society these signs of frustration, loneliness and deviant behaviour are already quite clearly discernible. That is why we find that healthy bodies which should accommodate a sound mind are being enfeebled by drugs and so on. All that remains is an enfeebled body, the bearer of a sick mind. In these circumstances of passive physical activity in the sphere of employment and ample leisure, the Department of Sport and Recreation has a tremendously important role to play. It is their task to make South Africa aware of and to motivate it to participate in sport and other physical activities which must serve to counteract the increasing degree of physical passivity. It is also their task to make the people aware and activate them to participate in sport and recreation in order to make the available leisure a blessing instead of a curse. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department today on what they have done and achieved in this sphere in the interests of South Africa. I think that the contribution which the Department of Snort and Recreation has made since its establishment, has contributed much to the brilliant achievements of our sportsmen and women. If we consider the assistance given by this department to the various national sporting bodies, one is impressed by their lions’ share in these brilliant achievements. For coaching and training projects R97 009 has been made available to 36 associations. In order to invite authorities to South Africa, this department has made R7 249 available to eight different associations. To send South African authorities and delegates abroad, R17 783 has been made available to 23 associations. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that all the back-patting that the hon. the Minister has been getting from the Government side and all the self-congratulatory messages that they have been sending each other, is not going to obscure the unfortunate fact that South Africa is still largely isolated from the big wide world of international sport. If one takes out a balance sheet of what the achievements, and otherwise, have been over the last year one finds, running through the list, that we are out as far as cricket is concerned, suspended from the World Soccer Federation, excluded from the Olympic Games when they meet in Munich later this year, so that our brilliant swimmers and other young athletes will unfortunately not be there in their Springbok blazers. We are also out of the Davis Cup as far as tennis is concerned, we are suspended from the world cycling body, we are out of world wrestling, we have also been refused affiliation to the world judo body, we have been replaced by the non-White body as far as table tennis is concerned, we are banned from cross-country world championships, we have been suspended by the world weightlifting body, we are banned from the canoe events and we are also excluded from gymnastics championships. Last year’s Spanish swimming tour was cancelled and the women’s hockey tour to New Zealand has also been cancelled. We retain a precarious hold as far as rugby is concerned in the international field and I understand that as far as fencing and ice-skating are concerned, we have so far resisted expulsion. When one takes the debits and credits it is undoubtedly to be seen that as far as sports in the international world are concerned, we are heavily in the red. It all comes down to one thing: All the fringe benefits which were offered by the hon. the Prime Minister, more particularly where White spectator sportsmen in this country are concerned, are just no good. They do not work. The world demands that South Africa play multi-racial sport inside South Africa: not only just at international level, not only just against international mixed teams, but within South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

Well, most of them. I am giving the example of where we have been excluded, and that is practically all of them. Certainly as far as cricket is concerned, that is the case.

No.

Yes, it is. I was in London when all these discussions went on. There is no doubt that the demand was made that South Africa play multi-racial cricket in South Africa, not just that we have multi-racial trials for international matches. There it is, and in any case, the whole direction is towards multi-racial sport and that demand. Whether it is true or not that it is only a vocal minority in countries like England, Australia and elsewhere that makes these demands of us, the fact remains that this small minority is sufficiently well organized and can make things so hot if South African teams go over, that the Governments and the sporting bodies of those countries concerned just do not think it is worth while. It is not worth while as far as the disorder that ensues, is concerned, and it is not worth while as far as their own internal race relations are concerned, if they happen to have multiracial populations, such as Britain. We just have to accept this position. We have to play multi-racial sport inside South Africa which, I believe, we ought to be doing anyway, as of choice and not simply because of pressure from the outside world, or we can simply expect to be excluded all the time.

The interesting thing is that where we have tried the experiment of multi-racial sport in South Africa, it has been a huge success. I take the three examples which have been mentioned. There have been the international multi-racial athletes meeting at Green Point, where we had all the jolly pictures of Black sportsmen jogging alongside White runners on the track, everybody enjoying themselves hugely, and the spectators as well; we had the international Federation Cup tennis at Ellis Park. I may say I was present at Ellis Park last year when the hon. the Minister was booed. He was booed for one reason only: South African tennis spectators considered that he and his Government had been responsible for our being kicked out of the Davis Cup competition, and because we had refused a visa to Ashe.

But we have had all that without having mixed tennis at club level.

Yes. Well, I am all for mixed tennis at club level and at every level. My point is that it is enjoyed by everybody, believe it or not. It is actually enjoyed by South Africans. I was at Ellis Park this year when the Prime Minister was clapped. He was given a great reception when he presented the Federation Cup to our two girls who had won it. I do not think it is because the hon. the Prime Minister is so much more popular with tennis spectators than the hon. the Minister of Sport. He was clapped because the Federation Cup tournament had taken place and it was multi-racial. There were people from different countries and people of different colours. This is what South African spectators want, believe it or not; even the spectators were sitting together. The stands were mixed; you know, Sir, the heavens did not fall; South Africa’s White supremacy was not endangered and actually people really enjoyed themselves. Now, why do we not go in for more of these experiments? It could happen slowly, if you like. If it is going to be such a traumatic experience for the average Whites, let them do it slowly; but let them do it if they want to do it. The hon. the Minister of Sport long ago issued a challenge to the sporting clubs, and the reply came back. He issued this challenge of course not expecting the answer to be “yes”. In fact, the answer “yes” came back from various clubs when they were asked.

Oh, no!

Well, then we read different newspapers. That is all I can say.

You should not believe all you read.

Well, I do not believe a lot of the newspapers, but there were very resounding “yesses” from a large number of the clubs.

Only for international sport.

Well, let them try it. If they want to play mixed sport on a club level, let them try it. Instead of this, the hon. the Minister, in reply to a question I put to him a little earlier this session, told me solemnly that the Government was contemplating further legislation to prevent that amount of mixed sport which was taking place at club level. What sort of an impact does this make on world bodies? Of course, we are going to be kept out and flung out of international sporting events if this is the attitude we adopt, where we are not even prepared to allow it at voluntary club level. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister and his Government are going to jettison immediately any idea of any further legislation which is going to prevent multi-racial sport. Let things evolve in this country. People’s minds are changing; people are beginning to feel the impact of world opinion. Let us not forget, whether we like it or not, overseas demonstrators have discovered that keeping South Africa out of international sport is a very effective punitive exercise against this country. I would say that the best way in which one could undermine their efforts would be to allow more latitude in multi-racial sport in this country and not try to move in the opposite direction, as the Minister suggested when he said the Government might be considering the introduction of further legislation. Sir, I am all for multi-racial sport. I think it is excellent for our young people of different races to meet on the sportfields. They get to know and respect each other that way. As I have said, where we have tried the experiment such as on golf courses, when the international golf tournament was held, and our own White, Black, Indian and Coloured golfers took part, together with Lee Elder, the American who came out, the whole event was enjoyed enormously by everybody, by the spectators of all colours and races and by the sportsmen of all colours and races. That is the direction in which South Africa should be moving. If this hon. Minister wants to go down in history as an effective Minister of Sport who has reintroduced South Africa into international circles, that is the direction he should take.

Mr. Chairman, the only respect in which one can really agree with the hon. member for Houghton is that she also thinks that sporting activities should be expanded, and that they should be practised by all race groups and peoples in our country. Further to that, I think, one must simply dissociate oneself a little from what she advocates and says about her integrationistic ideas as far as the sports groups are concerned.

The hon. member objected to the fact that certain tours had been cancelled. I want to say that not one was cancelled for which only South Africa was to blame. Foreign tours are cancelled as a result of the fact that the administrators give way before minority groups, inciters and mischief-makers, and that they are then afraid for our safety, although we be man enough to give them a hearing there. But I can mention here that, if what we are doing is so wrong, I wonder whether I am not right in saying then that the success which has been achieved in the field of sport during the past two years in this country, and on behalf of our country in overseas countries, is in fact owing to the sound sports policy of this Department and this Government. Over the past two years representatives of no fewer than 40 different varieties of sport left for abroad to represent this country there in various competitions. In all those cases the overseas contingents were a great success. I can mention in the same breath that representatives of no fewer than 44 different varieties of sport came to South Africa from abroad to pit their skills against South African sportsmen and women. In every case it was a success. Frequent mention was made of the athletic meeting held in the Green Point Stadium. It was a great success, and no fewer than 17 countries participated. This is the only level, namely the international level, where mixed sport may be practised by sportsmen of different countries in the various kinds of sport. As far as open tennis is concerned, we find that 32 countries came to this country to compete here. In the Federation Cup Competition history was, in fact, made. Thirty-one countries sent representatives here to participate in that competition. Those 31 countries which competed here in that competition, set a record. This is the greatest number of countries which have ever participated in the Federation Cup Competition. I say again: It is owing to the sound sports policy and it is owing to the good sportsmen and women which South Africa produces that other countries are so eager to come over here, and also that they are so eager to have us in their countries. Mention was made of golf. No fewer than 11 countries. if I have counted correctly, participated in that competition. Even England sent a tug-of-war team to the Republic to excite the imagination of the Republic’s tug-of-war teams and the whole tug-of-war sport. They also showed us how the tug-of-war should really be done. What a wonderful spirit that English team displayed here! In that way sport can be a light-bearer for the Republic of South Africa. In this respect we must mention all the things that are happening to carry the light to other countries, and also to associated sporting bodies. Have we forgotten already that more than 4 000 participants participated in the RSA 10 Festival? What a wonderful achievement that was! Have we forgotten that last year more than 300 000 children and adults participated in the Spring Walk and fitness tests, to show our appreciation of nature and the fitness which is part and parcel of such walks?

Mention was made of this wonderful sport report. I want to associate myself with the good wishes expressed and the tribute paid to the department and its Minister. This is a wonderful, a good and an instructive report, and the department is indeed doing positive work. In that report we find that, each month of the year, courses for coaching and coaches in the different varieties of sport are held, which help to make this department of ours larger and stronger and also more important in regard to the creation of a sound body and a sound mind among our people.

As far as the youth are concerned, we find that such courses are arranged during school holidays to keep them occupied in different ways. In this respect I also want to associate myself with the something which the hon. member for Kuruman quoted, which appears on page 3 of the sport report, namely that if a person is not trained to utilize his leisure positively and pleasantly, it could lead to frustration, loneliness and deviate behaviour. All these positive activities of the department contribute to this.

Last month I had a unique experience in this country of ours, when the Horseshoe Pitchers’ Association sent a group of sportsmen from America to travel through our country and demonstrate their horseshoe-pitching to us. What a wonderful group of five! There was the secretary of that great association from that great country, and Judge Ottie Reno, who was also on the team. Their wives accompanied them to this country to introduce their sport to the Jukskeigenootskap and other interested persons. What a fine sport! It is an achievement of which they are proud. They are proud of their country as well, the country they come from. So proud did they also become of the way we play our game in this country that they left here with the idea of inviting us immediately to visit them. They also left this country with a specific request that we convey to the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation, with whom they had the privilege of conversing and rubbing shoulders, their good wishes, and saying to them that they did not know whether they could match the hospitality and the good treatment they had received from us. They could only do their best. And then these people expressed this fine idea; so fond had they grown of this country and its sportsmen and women, that they said: “Please bring along with you the musical score of your National Anthem so that at your reception in Greenville during the championships, the band can play the National Anthem for the South African delegation.” Sir, in this way sport can be not only a great asset to itself and to the country, but a torch-bearer abroad, a torch-bearer to display this country at its best, just as it is, and to get from it the best for us. Everyone’s support is necessary to help this department make a positive contribution; to help the department to be of great service to the entire nation.

Sir, I agree with the hon. member for Innesdal that South Africa has produced a very large number of fine sportsmen. Indeed. I believe that having regard to the numbers of our population, South Africa has produced as large a number of fine sportsmen as any country in the world, if not a larger number. We hope that this will continue and that the non-White people will increasingly share in this. Sir, this side of the House takes particular joy in this fact, because it is this side of the House that has fought for opportunities for our sportsmen, in the international sphere particularly. It is this side of the House which showed the way to hon. members opposite so that eventually they had to change their policy. I want to say, Sir, that the whole of that side of the House was gloomy, particularly the hon. the Minister of Sport and the Press organs supporting the Government. The hon. the Minister of Sport and their organs took the view that you had to have integration right down to club level, indeed that you virtually had to have biological assimilation, according to their view, if you were going to get anywhere. The hon. the Minister of Sport virtually took this attitude when we dealt with his Vote last year, as he will find if he refreshes his memory. I can give him plenty of quotations from Hansard, and also plenty of quotations from Die Burger and other newspapers, to that effect. This side of the House said that that was nonsense; we said that we could make progress without that; and that has been proved to be the case, even with this inadequate, complicated sports policy that we still have.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has unlimited time in this debate and I sincerely hope that he will deal with all the questions that we have raised here. I hope that he will deal with the statement made by the Secretary for Sport and Recreation towards the end of June, 1971, where he too expressed these gloomy views. Those views seem to accord so much with the views of the hon. the Minister that I am wondering, although the statement was made after the announcement of the Government’s new sports policy, whether he and the hon. the Minister are not still sharing this gloom together. This is what the secretary is reported to have said—

Then, lower down—

These are the views of the Secretary for Sport and, as I say, they very much accorded with the views which the hon. the Minister of Sport was uttering at the time.

We are extremely glad that there is still a good deal of intercourse, e.g. visiting teams from overseas, and our teams going overseas, but the Government will be misleading itself if they think that this can be attributed to their sports policy. In particular, there has been very little change there. The main fact, I am sorry to say, that has led to this greater movement of sporting bodies to and fro, is the greater amount of money that has been voted. If hon. members would take the trouble to look they will find that in the first year, and working it out on the basis of a year, of the existence of our sport department, up to the end of December, 1967, tours were virtually at the rate of ten tours to and from South Africa, of an international kind, for an expenditure of approximately R22 000, whereas in the last calendar year, according to the report of the Department of Sport, we spent R85 000 on helping 32 tours to and from South Africa. In other words, we spent a great deal more. No, I am sorry, Sir, my figure is wrong. Over a period of a year in the first year we spent only R14 000. It was over a period of 18 months that we spent the R22 000. So it can be seen that a great deal of extra money has been spent in achieving these extra tours so that it would be wrong to attribute it to the change in policy.

Before I proceed I would like to say that we hope that overseas sportsmen will understand our situation here, and that they will continue to seek contact with us in regard to sport, and where they have done this and have been understanding, we must record our appreciation.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch, I am glad to see, is in his seat, because he touched on this matter and I think the hon. member for Potchefstroom may be wanting to touch on it. He spoke about the statement I made in regard to the D’Oliveira match, the special D’Oliveira farewell match. I want to say this. The United Party has never given its approval to mixed sport at club level. The hon. member can take that from me. If there is anything to the contrary, that does not represent policy. My statement in regard to this special D’Oliveira charity match was quite another matter. The hon. member said it was a lot of verbiage but let me tell him this, that after saying that the Western Province Cricket Union supported this match and that the players wished to play, I said—

Where does it fit in between club and provincial games?

This is not a question of a club game. This was purely an exceptional match and I trust that the hon. member for Stellenbosch will know now what our policy is in this regard.

I hope very much that the hon. the Minister will reply to the various questions which we posed him. There have been a lot of questions posed, and I hope very much that he will take the opportunity to reply to these, since he is about to reply to this debate.

In this debate the hon. member for Pinelands and other hon. members opposite surprised me as far as this intelligence is concerned. The hon. member for Houghton made it very clear that for the world there is only one choice and that is multi-racial sport in South Africa right down to club level. They do not give us any choice, but the United Party is trying to bluff itself if they think that the world regards us in any other way. What is more, their own friends of the MCC told them as much. This was thrashed out in last year’s debate. I cannot quote the entire debate of last year, but just read column 6615, where the relevant extract dealing with what the MCC said is quoted.

May I ask a question? If it is the case that this is what the world wants, how can we then have any success with Government policy.

That is why South Africa is fortunate in having a National Party in power which is realistic and which says that we have a multinational policy, and in terms of our national policy we afford each of those different people an opportunity of participating, and in addition that we will not allow sport to undermine and plough under our traditional way of life in South Africa, and that is why we and the Progressive Party will always be such sharply conflicting opposites. But we and they are at least realistic. The hon. member for Houghton may perhaps think she is just as realistic as we on this side are, but there is simply no room for these half-baked stories in between, and I shall tell you why there is no room for half-baked stories. Here in this sport situation the United Party is saddled with the same problem it has in regard to its Bantu policy. Only these few hon. members support and believe these stories which they advocate, but not one single person outside. I want to tell you this. If this policy of yours can be placed as clearly before the voters as in Oudtshoorn, you will be given an even worse hiding. [Interjections.] Let me just say this. The hon. member for Pinelands is now pretending to be so innocent here in this respect that he claims that all the cricket and soccer players are asking for is to be able to select an international team on merit. That is what the hon. member told us yesterday, and he repeated his statement two or three times subsequently, but he knows nothing about what the MCC said in regard to this matter, about it being at club level.

But they did not ask for that.

Since last year every last United Party and Progressive Party supporter has been asking for mixed cricket down to club level. There are enough examples of that. I can quote to the hon. member for Pinelands what his own club said.

Show me where the South African cricket authorities asked for this.

I can quote to him from provincial sources. Border asked for it and the Eastern Province asked for it, and the Transvaal asked for it, and Natal asked for it. This is only in the sphere of cricket, but individual sportsmen of high standing have also asked for multiracial cricket at club level, and they are not supporters of the National Party. There are international players who asked for this, specifically Mr. Peter Pollock. He asked for it again in September of last year, multi-racial cricket down to club level. But what makes the hon. members on the opposite side even more ridiculous, is that their own supporters say this at official meetings of the United Party, where members of the United Party executive are present—and not only at public meetings—as happened in Johannesburg. Last year it was reported in the Cape Times of 31st May, 1971, that the official members of the United Party executive requested mixed cricket down to club level by way of a resolution which was passed.

But that is not our policy.

The hon. member for Turffontein introduced a motion there which is in accordance with your policy. That motion was, according to this newspaper report, heavily defeated by members of the United Party executive. And what did they ask for?—

These are official United Party members who asked for this. But let us go a little further. The hon. member for Johannesburg North is adopting such a pious attitude this afternoon. Why does he not tell us what is in his heart? I asked him to tell us what is in his heart. I told him he must tell us honestly what his personal opinion is, and he did in fact give us his personal opinion, but why does he not state it officially for a change in this debate, so that the public may hear? After all, he told us what it was last year. Last year the hon. member for Johannesburg North said this, with reference to this referendum which was to be held by the soccer people on mixed sport. According to the Sunday Times of 27th February, 1972, in which reference was made to the interview of last year, as reported in the Star of 28th September, 1971, he said—

What is full-scale multi-racial soccer if it is not on a club basis?

Selection on merit.

In respect of all the interviews that hon. member gave in regard to this matter, not one single newspaper mentioned that he had referred to selection on merit. Not in one single interview given by the hon. member did he say that the selection of players would be on an international level only. But what seems to have happened is that since the sports debate last year in this House, in which they cut a woeful figure, and since the developments which have taken place during the past year, as well as with a view to the latest political situation in South Africa, the United Party has apparently decided that they will have to conduct this debate on a kind of conservative basis. They seem to have decided to stop at international teams, and that they ought not to go any lower than that, in spite of the fact that all their supporters say it.

Who joined in the applause last year when the cricket players walked off at Newlands? Who joined in the applause? Was it the hon. member for Johannesburg North?

That is not true.

It is true and you know that it was reported in that way in the Sunday Times. Must I show it to you again?

Yes, show me.

That hon. member was one of the greatest enthusiasts in that connection.

I have never yet said a word about it.

Let the hon. member for Pinelands tell us, if he would, where he condemned the actions of those cricket players. Let the hon. the Leader of the Opposition show us where he condemned their conduct. Together with the change in the political situation in South Africa these hon. members are now coming forward with this kind of story. Even the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District said today that the two non-White members who were to have gone to Australia would have been selected on merit, and that it was not the Government’s fault that this team had eventually been unable to go. Can hon. members believe that? In an article which I have on me, the hon. gentleman, Mr. Jack Cheetham, made the position very clear. It reads—

But now hon. members want to make too much of a little conservatism. I want to tell those hon. members that it is a great pity that a debate of 2½ hours has been conducted on these political principles.

May I ask you a question?

No, surely the hon. member knows that I do not have the time. I want to tell hon. members opposite that it is a great pity that we have had to spend 2½ hours of the time of the House simply on stating repeatedly to hon. members on that side of the House that they will not get anywhere with the standpoint they are adopting, for no one accepts it. Everyone sees right through what you are doing. Everyone in South Africa knows very clearly that the course adopted by this Government must be proceeded with very carefully, with the necessary discretion and with the necessary courage so that we can retain our own traditional way of life in South Africa and at the same time give everyone a fair chance of being able to participate in international sport. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I suppose that I should feel very relieved with this debate. Before I came down to Cape Town, the Press which supports the United Party told me that I was going to be lashed at the first opportunity and in the first debate that took place in this House, namely the no-confidence debate. They said that the sports policy and I as Minister were going to be lashed. I sat through the no-confidence debate and I waited for a speaker to get up to talk on the sports policy. But not one got up. I then thought that I should not bluff myself as I was not that important and that it would come during the Budget debate. And then again I waited and in the Budget debate the hon. member for Johannesburg North got up to speak. I then thought that he would tell the House what was wrong with the sports policy.

You know, Sir, all he talked about was Bantu labour. He never said a word about the sports policy. Now we hear that the chance for me to be lashed is under this Vote, and as the hon. member for Pinelands now says, I have indeed been lashed in this debate. Let me put it to him. There is the Shadow Minister of Sport who asked for the privilege of the half hour. It was granted to him. He spoke for ten minutes on sport and for ten minutes on the Broederbond and then he sat down after only 20 minutes of the 30 minutes had elapsed. This is all we had from the 30 minutes in which I was expected to be lashed.

There was a division of time.

I know. [Interjections.] I am sure that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central would have been only too pleased to give him his extra ten minutes. There are many other members on that side of the House who spoke, who would have been willing to do so. Of course, it was not done. Hon. members on that side have no idea whatsoever of the sports policy. I shall explain it to them.

You have no idea at all.

I will show it to the hon. members. Quite a long time ago, when this department was first established, that side of the House attacked Dr. Verwoerd and said that it was a public disgrace that he had established a Department of Sport. It was completely unnecessary, according to them, and we should never have had this new department. Another member said that it was just a Nazi move to indoctrinate the people of South Africa.

You have said this three times already.

I know, but it is the truth and I am going to remind the hon. members of it, because they conveniently forget things they have said in the past. I do not only want to go back as far as that, but want to refer to quite recent issues. The hon. member referred to the two issues of cricket and soccer and I will reply fully to him. He also said that he welcomed changes in the sport policy and there were improvements because we were following United Party policy. I presume this would also include the open internationals which everybody on that side of the House and the Press praised. Even the hon. member for Houghton gave me a tap on the shoulder. Let me just read what the hon. member for Johannesburg North said about these open international meetings. I want to quote from his Hansard of 22nd April, 1971, col. 5048. What I am going to quote now he said only last year. I quote—

Hear, hear!

Do hon. members really means “hear, hear!”? Is that how they feel about those open internationals? If that is so, they are completely against their whole Press. The point is that these hon. members only have one object and that is to see whether they can embarrass the Government and how many votes they can gain in the process. They will say piously: “Oh no, we must not mix politics with sport at those meetings with sport people”. Then they will make political speeches and try to get away with it. That has happened time and time again.

I want to say to the hon. member for Pinelands that I heard his explanation that the United Party would have allowed the three White players to play in a mixed team for the St. Augustine’s Club in the match which was held. I heard him say: “Oh, it was a special occasion.” Do you know why he said that. Sir? He said that although the U.P. was diametrically opposed to a policy which they had put down in print. It was diametrically opposed to that, but he thought that that was an opportunity for him at that stage on behalf of the United Party to put the Government in a hole and to collect a few votes. Now he finds himself in a bit of a hole because he must face Parliament. But when they go to Oudtshoorn. do you think they ever mention the St. Augustine match?—Never! They say that they do not believe in mixed sport.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. The hon. member for Potchefstroom read out what that member had to say and he indicated exactly the line taken. I want to read it again, but I want to give the whole basis of it. The statement on sports policy of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, was made in April, 1971, and was printed and I have the whole printed issue here. On the 26th September, 1971, which is six months afterwards, the hon. member for Johannesburg North made a statement to the Sunday Times. That hon. member gives many interviews to the Sunday Times. He gets lots of publicity from them. They give the hon. member a very nice title: “El Supremo”. Let me read what that newspaper printed.

Not “a” proposal, but “his” proposal!

He goes on:

This is printed in italics. Let me continue:

How right he is!—

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Can he tell us whether any mention is made there of multi-racial soccer at club level?

Mr. Chairman, I shall just read it again. The hon. member’s question gives me a welcome opportunity of reading it again so that it can sink into everybody’s head. He says—

At what level?

Picking a team at international level? The hon. member says:

The hon. member for Houghton a least says: “Look, whether it concerns FIFA or any other international sport body which has expelled South Africa, they have all said that unless South Africa has multi-racial soccer—or whatever sport—at all levels, we will not be taken back.” [Interjections.] If I am so wrong in my interpretation of it, I want to show hon. members what was also said by a newspaper at that time. A heading in the Sunday Express said …

The newspaper, not me.

Yes, the newspaper heading read: “Come out of your dream world, Dave.” The article continues:

I did not say that.

No, of course the hon. member does not say that. The hon. member makes statements and then pretends that he never made them, or that he made entirely different statements. This is the position: One minute hon. members on that side of the House make a policy statement, and the next minute they change their minds and the hon. member for Johannesburg North, the deputy shadow-Minister of Sport then says that there must be multi-racial soccer.

At what level?

On the casual match level …

On international level.

The hon. member must not try and get away with that one. He said the following—

Now what is an “occasional” mixed game? An international game? And what is not the occasional game? The league game, of course. I don’t think we are so foolish not to appreciate that. But of course the hon. member must try to get out of his predicament, and naturally the hon. member for Rosettenville is anxious to help him out of this difficulty. The trouble is that hon. members on the other side will go outside and say one thing, but when they are fighting candidates of the hon. member for Houghton’s party, they say another thing. That is how they play it. They have a two-stand policy, one for the platteland and one for the city. That is all there is to it. [Interjections.] When the hon. member says that, I know that his party is in a bit of a fix.

I now come to cricket. The hon. member said that demands were never made on us in South Africa to have multi-racial cricket at all levels.

I told you what we would do and asked what you would do.

The hon. member’s memory is probably failing and I want to point out to him that he made a statement in this House that I was misleading the House. He said I was misleading the House in that I said that the statement by the MCC was unequivocal, namely that there should be multi-racial cricket. I think he also told the Prime Minister that I should be kicked out of the Cabinet because I was misleading the House. The hon. member did not do his homework. The hon. member for Houghton also confirmed that that is what they demanded. I want to read the statement by the British Cricket Council in this regard. It reads:

Let me break off the sentence there for a moment. I read further—

Now where is it stated that there should only be a couple of non-Whites in an international team? This fact has been stated repeatedly since. The hon. member keeps on with this argument and there is no substance in it. My point is that we should at least look at the position realistically. I do not want to go along with my head in the ground like the ostriches of Oudtshoorn. I prefer to discuss matters with the sports administrators. I prefer to talk with the people who are concerned with sport, and that is exactly what I do. I find out from them what their problems are. I have always handled the matter in that way. I might say that when I come here I get no assistance from those two hon. members, the shadow minister and his shadow deputy. They do not help me, but I do get assistance from the sports administrators and am able to unravel problems. In this way we reach a mutually satisfactory basis.

We helped you get a new policy.

The hon. member raised the old Broederbond issue again and waved a pamphlet in this House yesterday. The new sports policy, according to the hon. member, is that of the Broederbond. Previously it had been this terrible Minister who was bungling his new sports policy for South Africa. It was not the Broederbond then. Then it was this pathetic Minister. But now it is the Broederbond. Then, when it suits them again, our sports policy contains things taken over from United Party policy. There is one thing I learned from the exposition, namely that they have never forgotten that they used this Broederbond story about 20 or 30 years ago, which brought them into power. So whenever they are in a hole, out they drag the Broederbond. I think it is about time they wrote a new serial about the Broederbond. I do not think that people can be influenced with all these cloak-and-dagger stories about the Broederbond or that they are listening any more. Nobody is taking any notice of this idea that the English must beware of the terrible Broederbond. The hon. member for Waterberg is now the new leader of the Broederbond. Now, all of a sudden, according to hon. members opposite, I must regard him as a most dangerous man, with horns coming out of his head and a forked tail. I have never heard such nonsense. But this is the sort of stuff that is put over whenever they are in trouble. This Broederbond racehorse is over 30 years old now and cannot win a race any more. Even a good businessman like Dave Marais will talk about the Broederbond horse but he will never put his money on it.

I now come to the hon. member for Houghton. Last year the hon. member for Houghton said, and I am not sure about her exact words, that I was gullible. She said that I should know that the only way that we would restore South Africa’s image and gain peace for South Africa, would be if we had multi-racial sport. Of course, I said at the time that that was nonsense. I still remember that I quoted what a certain man, Abdul Minti said. He is not a little backroom boy in the anti-apartheid movement, but one of their top boys. Sanroc is a convenient wing of the anti-apartheid movement through which they attack South Africa. He made this sort of statement:

They would not get the support of the governments in their own countries.

One only has to look at Africa to see what happens. I like the hon. member, but I think she is very naïve. [Interjections.] She thinks that everything in the world is going to be wonderful if we would just take over her policy. If that happens, one can write the White man in South Africa off.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

You can in a minute, I just want to finish my argument. I also want to say to the hon. member for Houghton that with all this talk about South Africa’s isolation I know we have had a difficult time. I do not bluff myself that we do not have problems. But isolation? In this regard I want to mention some figures. In the last two years we have had visits by sporting teams from 29 different countries.

What sports?

Various sports. I have the details here. It is in the report. During this time 66 South African teams went overseas to 33 countries. Hon. members talk as if South Africa is completely isolated and as if nobody wants to take any notice of us. I know the Olympic Committee is very anxious for South Africa to get into the Olympic Games, but I have looked at this matter very objectively. I have come to the conclusion that the Olympics have become an international political body. It is a matter now of how many gold medals the Americans get, and how many gold medals the Russians get. Then they raise the issue of amateurism, when they know that the Russians have athletes taking part in the Olympic Games who are paid by their government. Then they decided to send a poor little Austrian skier home because he is a professional. The amazing thing was that when he arrived at Vienna over 100 000 Austrians went to meet him at the station, something which had never happened in the whole history of Austria. It is because of this situation that the whole matter is getting ridiculous. From my point of view, I am very anxious for people to come and visit South Africa and for South Africans to go and visit other countries overseas, but I am not breaking my heart about our not taking part in the Olympic Games.

Are you against it?

No. Now, you see, Sir, he asks whether I am against the Olympic Games. I am just saying that I am not breaking my heart because we are not going to these Olympic Games. I think the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District indicated that he wanted to ask me a question.

May I ask the hon. the Minister, did he receive such a document from the Broederbond?

I did not and I gather the hon. member did. May I ask him if he is a member of the Broederbond?

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Minister is prepared to put my name forward, I would be glad to join that organization.

The hon. member for Pinelands also wanted to ask a question.

Mr. Chairman, what I want to know, is whether it is correct, as I believe it is, that the Broederbond did in fact supply that document … [Laughter.]

Mr. Chairman, really, it is laughable. You know, Sir, they are pulling out this old race-horse—I think it must be a corpse already; it must be 40 years old, but they keep on pulling it in to run in the Durban July. Mr. Chairman, I have never heard such nonsense in my life. I want to say this cloak and dagger business with the Broederbond does not work any more, the same as any cloak and dagger story with the Sons of England does not work any more.

There are a number of questions which hon. members put to me and which I want to answer. I think it was the hon. member for Pinelands who wanted to know about the international stadium. On the 18th April a question was put to me, which I answered in this House. It contained a number of points. One of them was whether the Government intended to establish an international stadium. The answer was no, and it is on record.

Which one are you going to use instead?

Now, wait. That was the answer to the hon. member’s question.

The hon. member for Houghton spoke about mixed cricket in Johannesburg and the fact that, in reply to a question. I indicated we were contemplating legislation. Now let me tell the hon. member that that mixed game was organized by the Wits students under Kane Berman. It was reported in the Press and the photographers were called in to cover it as a confrontation with the Government. I want to say to the hon. member—I cannot say it as effectively as the Minister of National Education—that if anybody, the hon. member included, thinks that the Government is going to stand nonsense from these students, they must realize we are not. That was the only issue that came to my notice.

[Inaudible.]

It is so. The matter of the ordinary games that may have been played on private tennis courts never occurred to us. But here was an attempt to confront the Government with this situation.

There was also a cricket match here in Cape Town.

Well, I have no knowledge of that one. All I know is that they obviously did not seek the Press publicity that the Wits students sought. That is why I say quite frankly to the hon. member that we on this side of the House are not going to stand this sort of nonsense.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is he still contemplating legislation to deal with such matters?

I did not answer the question that way; I said that legislation was being contemplated. It is not for me to introduce legislation on that matter. I reported the matter to the Ministers concerned and I had discussions with them about it, and that is how the position stands at the present moment.

The hon. member also wanted to know why members of the Press were refused permission to attend the trial tennis match held on that Friday.

The Federation Cup.

Yes, the Federation Cup. I will tell hon. members exactly what happened and then they can tell me if I acted badly or unwisely. Firstly, the representatives of the Tennis Association had made a statement, with the approval of the Government, that an open international would be held to pick teams for the Davis Cup and the Federation Cup on the basis of merit only; because these are world sporting events, and we recognize world sporting events as all South African events. The two representatives of the Tennis Association came to me and said, “We are in a big jam; we have made all arrangements for the Federation Cup, but the Federation Cup tournament is taking place Before the Open International. We have already said that we were going to pick a team on merit; how are we going to do it?”. They then asked whether they could hold open trials at Ellis Park. I said that that was absolutely against Government policy. They know that an open international is the basis on which we allow teams to be picked on merit. Eventually, after we had discussed the issue, the decision was reached that they could arrange what amounted to a sort of trial match. I have always understood that a trial match is a match played on a public court, with the public present as spectators. I then said: “In view of your predicament, I have no objection to your arranging the matches on a private court, without the presence of representatives of the Press and of the SABC; the only people who may be present are those who are going to select the team.” Hon. members opposite must tell me whether they feel that in essence that is what should have been done under the circumstances.

Will the hon. the Minister be prepared to grant permission to the Cricket Council to hold a mixed trial on a private field?

That is a different matter. The situation here was quite different to a cricket trial.

What is the difference?

As I have said right from the beginning, I only did this in conjunction with the tennis people because of the situation that had been created.

I think it is utterly illogical and nonsense.

That may be the hon. member’s opinion, but I am telling hon. members what happened. The hon. member may think so, but I do not; I considered that this was the way in which the situation should be handled, and that is how it was handled.

Did the Minister get a permit from the Department of Community Development to hold this tennis trial?

Sir, the hon. member must understand that on a private court a non-White can play against a White; no permit is needed. If the trial had been held on a public court, at Ellis Park, a permit would have been necessary, and if the public had been allowed to attend it would have become a major policy issue. This was done merely to meet the situation.

I understand that on a private court non-Whites can play against Whites. Why then cannot they play on a private cricket-field as well?

As I told hon. members, the whole idea underlying that cricket match was to confront the Government on the question of mixed cricket, and we are not standing for it. Hon. members opposite can disagree and they can say as much as they like, but that is the policy of this side of the House.

May I ask a question?

No, I am not going to answer any more questions. Sir, I am always willing to answer questions, but hon. members opposite are just playing the fool.

Sir, I want to give the hon. member for Bethlehem the assurance that the department will make every effort to expand the national fitness scheme by the inclusion of swimming. I quite agree with the hon. member that with our climate, swimming is an ideal form of physical exercise. Then I want to say to the hon. member for Pretoria District that the publication to which he referred was published in the old days by the Department of Education and subsidized by them. It was not a matter which we as the Department of Sport took over automatically, but I will go into the point raised by him.

I want to say to the hon. member for Stellenbosch that I appreciate the way in which he goes out of his way to show up the illogicality of the policy of that side of the House. I appreciate the fact that on these occasions I always have the support of the hon. member for Stellenbosch and the other members who came to my aid during this debate.

I want to end on this note. What is the position of sport today? It was the Leader of the Opposition who made the statement that sport had become an extension of foreign policy, but now all of a sudden hon. members opposite say, “Leave it to the sports administrators”. If sport has become an extension of foreign policy, do hon. members opposite not think that it is a matter of concern to the Government? Do they think you can simply leave the whole thing in the hands of the sports administrators? In the first instance it is not fair to them because they have not got the necessary knowledge of foreign policy. I have had discussions with the sports administrators and I have pointed these things out to them. I would remind hon. members of what was said by this man, Abdul Minti; he said, “You can do everything you like as far as sport is concerned, but until we take over South Africa, we will never stop harassing South Africa.” He was the top man in the anti-apartheid movement. Sir, I enjoy sport; I have always enjoyed it. I have always felt that participation in sport does one a lot of good, but I want to say to hon. members opposite that to me the national interest is even more important than sport. I am not prepared to sacrifice the national interest of South Africa just to satisfy those who demand multi-racial sport or to maintain international sporting contacts. That is our policy, and that is how we are going to carry on. We are not prepared to take the line which we think the Opposition is taking.

Will the hon. the Minister deal with my question as to whether the Government has made any decision with regard to a sports council? I also dealt with soccer and cricket.

I have no intention of appointing a sports council. As far as soccer is concerned, I accept that amateur soccer is an Olympic Game, and that therefore they are entitled to the same facilities that apply to other Olympic Games. They can have an open international, but they will have to conform to the conditions governing an open international. I should imagine that their problem will be very great in view of the fact that FIFA does not recognize them. As far as cricket is concerned, my relationship with the cricket people will continue on-the basis on which it is today. It is a healthy basis and I am not going make decisions which will be directly opposed to the interests of cricket just to be difficult. If there is a way of doing things, I will try to assist them but I am not prepared to discuss matters with administrators and then disclose them over the floor of this Committee. I will talk to them directly about their problems.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 36.—“Water Affairs”, R17 875 000, Loan Vote E.—“Water Affairs”, R91 887 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 20.—“Water Affairs”, R11 906 000:

May I ask for the privilege of the half hour? May I commence by thanking the hon. the Minister for the tours he organized during the recess for members not only of the water group on this side of the House but also for hon. members generally to attend the opening of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam. I would like to dwell on that for a moment to emphasize the appreciation we feel towards the Minister because I think that this was not a case of just what one might call a normal courtesy. I think it was something which was productive of every great good. I believe that in matters such as the works which are involved in the Orange River Scheme, which were visited by hon. members, and the opening of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam, the contacts which were made with officers of the department and other officials and the first-hand knowledge which is gleaned by hon. members seeing for themselves what is taking place, does an immense amount of good. Reading documents and papers may be very rewarding, but I have always believed that going to see with your own eyes is a very much better way of gaining understanding, even on the part of members of Parliament, than merely reading documents and papers. We appreciate the courtesy which the Minister has shown us in organizing these trips and we only hope that his good example may be regarded with favour by some of his colleagues, and that his colleagues may be prepared to take a leaf out of his book.

It has been done.

When one looks at the Estimates before us and one sees the vastness of the work being undertaken now in the various parts of the country by the Department of Water Affairs, I think it is fair to say that probably similar plans could be made, and if made timeously could only be conducive of great good. I have from time to time dealt with the principles which from this side of the House underlie our approach to water affairs. I have repeated them every year for many years, even before the present Minister was the Minister of Water Affairs, and bit by bit we see the gradual acceptance of those principles. I am going to repeat them again, because I think they should be repeated year by year. We had one Minister of Water Affairs, the one before the present Minister, whom we pressed hard to say whether he agreed with our principles and that they were good principles. I do not think he wanted to admit that any good could come out of Jerusalem, and so he did not want to admit that anything good could come from the United Party, but that was not because there was anything wrong with out principles, but he refused to agree with us for political reasons. I think it was really nothing more than that.

Let me again say that our first principle is the safeguarding of supplies of water for our settled communities, whether they are rural or urban. Our first duty is towards the people who are there, rural or urban. Secondly, we believe that South Africa should develop its own resources before it starts on foreign ventures. Foreign ventures in the course of time may be very good, but we have never yet had explained to us the principles upon which the Government acts when it engages in foreign ventures. We do not understand yet whether it is purely economic principles or whether there is a good neighbour policy or whether there is some other aspect of the matter with which we are acquainted, when the Government proceeds to spend hundred of millions of rand, or commits itself to that expenditure, in other areas, when we have such a vast amount of development of our own water resources which awaits our immediate attention. In passing, may I say this. I do not want to cut across what other hon. members have to say on this side of the House, but what with rising costs and the difficulty of labour, and the fact that so many of these schemes are now reaching such enormous financial commitments that one has to go far afield, even outside of South Africa, to get the necessary technical and professional help, consortiums have to be formed to come along to handle some of these schemes—when one bears that in mind we can see the vastness of the schemes that are waiting for development in regard to our own resources. Sir, we want to see our own resources developed. We do not want to be held to ransom by someone else because one or other of our major schemes may be at the mercy of a country other than our own. Let us develop our own resources and protect them.

The third point is the development of a grid scheme. This, I am pleased to say, is now being advocated by various authorities who seem to have forgotten the source from which they first drew their inspiration. That is not uncommon in public life. I think we are all used to it, where people are very ready to pick the fruits off another man’s tree but forget to say “thank you” to the man who planted the tree and nursed it with water and helped it to grow up. So I say we are very pleased indeed to see that the grid system is now receiving some encomiums from highly qualified engineers and others, as being something of great value. I refer to a grid system which will permit of the interchange of water from one part of the country to the other, chiefly bearing in mind that we want to conserve water from what we call the high bergs, which are the areas in which normally there is snowfall and therefore one gets a run-off. But the well-watered areas, the areas which have high mountains, are all areas where the grid system could be introduced for the general benefit of the counter and much development can take place in those areas. The next point is that which was brought forward some two years ago as a request specifically for what we call apportionment. I want to say at once that we all appreciate on this side of the House that the Minister has got a legacy of much trouble from past years. We accept that his department and his officials are carrying an immense burden which they did not themselves incur. When I therefore say that we asked for apportionment two years ago, I want to explain that we did not expect two years ago that by now we would have had apportionment completed in South Africa, but we believe that a start must be made, despite that legacy of trouble from the past, in spite of the shortage of staff, in spite of the difficulties that arise from the inadequacy of our own professional people in the department. We believe a start must be made and it must be made on very wide principles and over very wide areas. Let us take a rough example without throwing a brick at anybody and without any kind of accusation against anybody. Let me take the position of Cape Town recently, before the rains came. It is a city served virtually by three dams and the city council has been under great pressure—which I have noticed with great interest—from various folk to impose water restrictions and to take urgent measures to restrict water consumption and so on. The city engineer who was working on various rainfall tables said that he was certain we would get rain and he was proved to be right in his calculations—there is nothing that succeeds like success, particularly in predicting rainfall for the purpose of filling your empty dams—based on what the tables of weather forecasts have told him over the years and based on what the rainfall returns have told him. His predictions have come out; they were correct and we had rain. Now the water is running into our dams. The result is that all is well. The point I want to make is this: How close to a disaster can a city like Cape Town come? How much can it afford to rely on rainfall returns over the years? Rainfall returns are not one of those things which are light arithmetic where you can put sums on a black-board and work them out to an exact answer, the answer being that rain will fall on 1st May, 1972. You cannot do it like that because it is not an exact science which you can calculate from past rainfall returns, not even if you have them spread over the last two or three hundred years. The longer you have your returns the more valuable they become and the more are they a true indication of what you can expect. It is too dangerous to do it that way. A City like Cape Town should have had an apportionment, in our opinion, long before and under the grid system a certain supply of water could have been made available to Cape Town. It is perfectly true that this could only have been done at great cost, but that is not the issue. The first principle is that existing communities must have an adequate supply of water. You must not be banking on getting rain within 10 days or a fortnight’s time. If the Almighty in His wisdom decides that this is going to be a bad drought year, and you do not get rain within the 10 days or the fortnight’s time, you are going to be confronted by a very great and critical crisis. We have to have apportionment even on the broadest and widest scale for the purposes of our development, whether it is for mining, urban development or for whatever purpose it may be. Whatever it may be, we must know that within that area the water from those rivers are going to be apportioned elsewhere and the water from the other rivers will be apportioned here. It will be over vast stretches of country, but let us see how we can apportion the water from existing sources. If we are to have more dams on the Orange River or elsewhere—and they will have to be built —let us accept that. Let us sit down and work on the basic apportionment of the water so that it will be known that where development is taking place, the water for that area will be coming from such and such a river for development purposes.

In this Vote last year we raised the point—and this is our fifth point—of having a proper scientific investigation into all aspects of our water supplies. When we got the Bill setting up the water research commission, we had hopes that that would likely be the instrument for achieving our purpose. I am afraid that we were disappointed. We have misunderstood the position. We want a survey of all aspects of water in South Africa. The hon. the Minister has issued a word of warning and other people have taken it up. Others have come along at farmers’ gatherings and elsewhere and it is repeated often that in such and such a year we are going to have to face a short supply of water. We hear that we are going to be in short supply in so far as water is concerned in such and such a year. We hear that by such and such a year there will be no more free water available and that our water supplies will be exhausted. This is the kind of thing we hear. It keeps on coming along.

This does not only need the practical experience of farmers and industrialists; it requires careful research into every field including our underground water supplies. We had a Bill here the other day dealing with underground water supplies. The hon. the Minister himself explained—and we on this side of the House agreed—that our knowledge of underground water supplies today had gone forward by leaps and bounds since, say, 20 years ago. No doubt, with proper scientific investigations using methods and instruments which are available today, which were unknown 20 years ago, surveys can be made of our underground water supplies which will put us in a much better position to judge what we have in the way of resources in this regard.

However, we want a scientific investigation into all aspects concerned with the use of water. Let me just give an example of one or two: There is the re-use of water, which is paid lip-service to, and there is the recycling of water and desalination. I want to suggest that one of the aspects which calls for the closest and most careful scientific investigation is the misuse of water in urban communities. The amount of water used by the ordinary household in the course of an ordinary 24-hour day for various purposes is astounding. The household misuses terrific quantities of water. I do not want to go into the lurid details; I am sure hon. members can think for themselves how much water is used every time they pull the chain and whether, in fact, it is necessary to have that amount of water used for that purpose. This is the kind of thing which must be considered, even down to the question of taps. The hon. members know that, if a tap is attached to a one-inch pipe, it will in the course of 24 hours cause a far greater misuse of water than the tap which is affixed on to a half-inch pipe. This is simply because it pours out at a so much greater rate and it is so much easier and quicker to keep the tap turned on. The extra water flows away, and by and by one turns the tap off. If one has to wait for the water and consequently turns the tap off the moment one can do so, because one wants to waste no more time, one will use much less water. Municipalities as a whole should be surveyed very carefully. They should be the subject of a most intensive Survey to see if we can save water before we start to look around to see what other courses are open to us.

I now want to come to the issue we have before us this year, the one we should like to make a point of, namely the question of enforcement and, with it, control. I want to say in all frankness to the hon. the Minister that, so far as pollution of our water supplies is concerned, the situation is going from bad to worse. Pollution is spreading and increasing at an uncontrollable rate at the present time, because what teeth are in the Water Act, as amended, are not enforceable, or are not being enforced. Again I say that I am not trying to minimize the difficulties that are facing the hon. the Minister and his department. I do not expect the hon. the Minister to go around with a bottle with a screw top, and which is certified as having no contaminating substance in it—in other words, it is completely sterile—and taking samples of polluted water. I do not expect that of him but, until someone does that, one cannot get a conviction in the law courts.

In the case of the Natal Parks Board, we have brought case after case to court, but we have never yet had a conviction. One must have a man who is not only prepared to take samples in a sterile bottle, but who is prepared to go into a witness-box and give evidence under oath as to the source from which that effluent or polluted water was abstracted or taken. He must show, too, that it could have come from no other source. Then he must prove that it is in fact contaminated. He must show that it is polluted. We have now in our present Act, as amended the other day, a provision that water cannot be polluted to the extent that it is no longer fit for the use to which it was or could be put, including the provision that it should be fit, for example, for fish to live in.

Fair enough. We have just had a big case up in the Isipingo River near Durban where fish had died by the thousands. This is not the first time. It happens more or less once every year or so. Speaking without the book, once every year or so we get that kind of pollution. Now, there is no argument. There is the water and the fish that have died. That is not sufficient. The department won’t get a conviction on that. The department has to take that polluted liquid, show where it comes from and that it has no other admixture in it and that it was responsible for the death of those fish. It will have to prove that the water was therefore polluted in a manner which made it unfit for fish to live in. The man who gives that evidence will have to stand up in the witness-box before the finest advocate that money can buy and face cross examination, with the best support that that advocate can get from the best technical, commercial chemists that he can by. This is what the department is up against. To think that an ordinary organization like the Natal Parks Board can get a conviction under these circumstances, is out of the question. When you go to court over these cases, it is only because it is a bad case.

The little spills of oil, the little pollutions from small mills at the present time, are there by the score, and are passing almost unnoticed. But it is not unnoticed as far as the welfare of our country is concerned. Here I want to come to what is basic to my mind concerning the question of the enforcement of the law. By enforcement, as I said the other day, I mean that a man who is guilty of pollution of such a character that it is clearly destroying one of the natural and most important assets that we have, namely our water supply, should be sure of punishment. Until the man who offends is caught and punished, we are not going to get away with our pure water supplies in South Africa. They will everlastingly be subject to pollution. If some particular advocate makes a special point of studying our Water Act and starts taking on big cases with big companies with vast financial resources behind them and wins one or two cases, his money is made and we will continue to face the consequences of continuing pollution. Until the big man is prosecuted and punished, we are not going to save our water supplies.

It is no good our talking about coming to the end of the available water in our rivers or the available water that we have in the country and that our water supplies are now becoming depleted until, at any rate, we see to it that what is pure water remains pure water and is not contaminated by pollution from industrial houses, etc. I do not particularly want to point to industrial houses, except to say that I know of a case in respect of which the papers have recently been sent to the Department of Water Affairs with, I understand, photos. I have a copy of them. I can show what is happening from a paper mill up in Zululand where effluent is running into the sea. The same applies. Surely we have to read the lesson of what happened in overseas countries. We have got to read the lesson of the survey that was carried out in the English Channel where the whole of that Channel from Britain to France is littered, feet deep in some places, with the rubbish that mankind has thrown into the sea because he thought he was getting rid of it.

Along the length of our seashore we have an area of turbulence where the waves break and are supposed to mix up all the various acids and fluids of all kinds, the obnoxious effluents which are poured into the sea. But they can only take so much and they then spew it up again and throw it back at us. In no respect has that proved to be the case more than with oil spillage. I am not going to deal with oil spillage in detail today, because we will have another opportunity for that. But here again, until there are teeth in the measures which the Government is prepared to use against the people who spill oil on the waters around our coast, we will continue to run the risks which we are running at the present time, namely that of a complete disaster. I think our policy is completely wrong. What right do we have to take a ship like the Silver Castle and bring her inshore and run the risk of her breaking up right alongside our beach? That boat should have been taken a 100 miles out and sunk. What would we have lost? One cargo of oil. And what are we risking losing now? We are risking losing perhaps a 100 miles of our coastline, with the marine life and all the amenities that go with the access to the beach along that area. It is only a matter of time before the law of averages takes effect.

Pollution does not only concern the rivers, dams and lakes that come under the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs. It is in the very air we breathe, it is in the soil in which we cultivate our food and it is in the sea in which we bathe and from which we catch our fish. It is in every aspect of the human habitat, and we as part of the animal kingdom have to realize that we can be attacked from every single aspect in our daily lives, namely the water we drink, the food we eat, the soil we cultivate, the water we bathe in and the very air we breathe. We cannot see radioactive fall-outs, but we can see old bottles, newspapers, and other things lying around. We can see the things thrown into our rivers and say what a shocking business; let us collect it all and let the children help us to gather it up, but this is only one necessary aspect of the problem. We must try to educate our children so that they will not be so untidy; in other words, don’t let them act like homo sapiens. Not so long ago I saw youngsters picking up some rubbish, while another kid close by was throwing some down. One of the youngsters picking up the rubbish went over to him and said: “Look man, don’t act like a grown-up. Try and act like a child and pick that rubbish up.” We therefore have to train our children so that they will not act like grown-ups, but like children.

The basic point we are trying to make this year to the hon. the Minister is that he should get a measure with teeth in it and that he will find a simple method whereby the wrongdoer will be punished, and punished quickly with heavy penalties. That is the only way in which we are going to protect our existing water supplies above the earth and below the earth. If we put rubbish into the rivers and it flows into the sea, we are defiling the sea as well. The time has come that it is no good we talking about the end of our water resources unless we are prepared to do something positive and definite. This side of the House will back the Minister if he comes with something which is designed to try and put sharp teeth into our water laws and which contains the necessary machinery to back up the measures in the Bill itself. I want to be able to ask the Minister here in Parliament if I, the Natal Parks Board, or any other well-meaning person, find any pollution polluting our rivers, our dams and our municipal water supplies, to whom do I go so that the matter will be investigated forthwith and the wrongdoer found and punished. To whom do I go? I do not know. I am supposed to know, but I do not.

Sometimes you can go to the municipalities.

Yes, and they send out their health officer. He confirms that it is pollution and then looks at me with big innocent eyes. I knew it was pollution, but what I want to know is to whom do I go to find out who created the pollution and whom I can request to find such a person or persons. In the case of public health, you just report a case where the health of the people is threatened and the Public Health Department then takes the matter over. You as a citizen do your duty by reporting it. The Public Health Department comes in, the doctors come in, they take over; they will go to court; they give evidence; the man will be found guilty and he can be punished. But we have no such means of dealing with people who pollute our rivers. In many cases it is far more far-reaching than it is in the case of individual local health for a few people living here and there. Sir, I do appeal to the Minister please to prepare for the day when he can say to us that the man who pollutes our rivers, dams and sea, and is reported, will be dealt with in such and such a way, that the matter will be taken up forthwith, that the scientists will be put on the job, with the chemists, a prosecution will be established and we can hope that we will get a conviction, because we have the law behind us. We will alter that law until a conviction can be achieved and the wrongdoer punished, and punished very severely indeed.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for South Coast, who expressed his appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his department for the opportunity given to the study groups to undertake a trip to view the great waterworks at present being carried out by the department. We found this very informative. From the speech of the hon. member for South Coast it is clear that he is expressing no serious criticism, and that not only our side, but also the opposition side is very satisfied with the great work that the department is engaged in. We should also like to express our thanks to the hon. the Minister for having had the opportunity to attend the opening of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam, for having been able to witness that historic occasion and the spectacular view. I very sincerely want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the department on the wisdom they displayed in knowing beforehand when that dam would be full and would overflow. They chose the moment very well.

Then, as a representative of Western Cape constituency, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for the announcement of the Western Cape’s water plan. For many years I personally have felt that since we are living here in a part of the country which was the first to welcome civilization and the first to be developed, we have waited too long in respect of a positive development plan for the water in this part of our country. We do not have the mineral and coal riches of the other parts of our country. Actually we have only our land and our water sources. Therefore I want to say today that we—I am saying this on behalf of a large portion of the Western Cape —express our sincere and hearty thanks to the hon. the Minister and his department, which had to do the groundwork for this very important announcement and the positive start that has already been made on this scheme. I am convinced that this is not only a very essential undertaking, but also that with the passing of the years the hon. the Minister will become convinced that is was a good investment.

Pursuant to that I want to point out that with the announcement of this plan, the hon. the Minister cancelled a certain scheme for which representations have for years been made, i.e. the Aspoort scheme, and announced that that scheme was dropped for practical reasons, because of the high costs and all manner of problems that would crop up. I do not want to comment on that decision. I accept the fact that the hon. the Minister and his department had good reasons for making that announcement and taking that decision; but I want to point out that an important stream in the Western Cape, i.e. the Doring River, as a branch of the Olifants River, remains undeveloped and that there is a large water supply that still flows unutilized to the sea. In addition, I want to point out that annually at the Clanwilliam Dam—we are grateful for the fact that the height of the dam wall has been increased and the capacity extended—in average rainfall years, a great deal of water still flows to the sea, and that we who represent the Western Cape areas further into the interior, to the north, look forward to the further expansion and development of the Western Cape plan in which the surplus water of the Olifants River and the water of the Doring River will be properly harnessed and utilized for the development of this part of our country. The Citrusdal area and the already developed area of the Olifants River in the vicinity of Vredendal, offer the opportunity for considerable additional development. Here is an area in which we can furnish an important contribution with respect to the provision of the necessary food for the developing urban area of the Peninsula. We want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will give serious attention to that. We are aware of the fact that there are other schemes or dams in the Western Cape area which are probably going to enjoy preference in the near future, but I want to express the hope that the construction of a dam in the upper reaches of the river at Citrusdal and the harnessing of the water of the Doring River by a dam above Klawer, will become a reality in the foreseeable future for the development of this part of our country. If one looks at the whole picture it strikes one that by the development of that area it even becomes possible, through the utilization of the water of the Olifants River area, for the Doring River indirectly to make a contribution towards increasing the water potential and the water supply for the Peninsula because more water from the Twenty-four Rivers, which has since, this week-end been flowing towards Cape Town, can be made available for the Peninsula via the Voëlvlei scheme. I do not want to go into the details of that now, but I just want to say that I have sufficient confidence in the ability of the hon. the Minister and the Secretary for the department, and particularly the planning division, to come up with a plan in the course of time to enable us to properly utilize that water potential of our country, particularly that of the Western Cape.

Then—and this is my final thought—I should like to say that we would like the hon. the Minister and his department to continue broadening the impact of our big water schemes as much as possible. I think the Orange River development project illustrates what I mean by that, i.e. that water in a specific dam. such as the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam, will be channelled in many directions, thus extending its arms as far as possible and furnishing a great national service. Thus would I like to see the hon. the Minister harnessing the water of the Olifants River, which flows through a semi-desert area, to also provide the dry areas, the Sandveld area at Graafwater-Lamberts Bay, with good drinking water. In those parts it has simply been proved throughout the years that it is not worth the trouble to bore for subterranean water. Our people are waiting longingly for that. The same applies to the water of the canal system, more to the north, towards the Hardeveld. Those people look forward to the State accommodating them, because their lives actually consist of saving money simply to try to bore for water again, and that is usually how their entire lives are spent. But today I think they are beginning to look forward to the State, particularly the Minister of Water Affairs, radically changing their lot by supplying them with water—good water—along these lines in a more planned and assured manner. I want to wish the hon. the Minister and his department everything of the best. I see that in the Estimates a considerable amount has been voted for new equipment. Sir, it has struck us that the department has greatly modernized and mechanized its equipment during recent years. This speeds up the work; it impresses us, and creates in us the confidence that this department will do the work which essentially must be done in the years ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister and the House the question of the development of the Tugela basin, and I do this specifically with the third point of our policy in mind, that of apportionment, because the greater part of my constituency lies in the basin of the Umgeni River. The hon. the Minister’s department has recently begun the construction of the Albert Falls Dam. Sir, the point that I wish to make about the Umgeni River is that by 1985, with the completion of the Albert Falls Dam and, I believe, a further dam to be built at the gorge site, the total volume of water in the Umgeni River will be committed; there will be absolutely nothing to spare in the service of Pietermaritzburg, Durban, Pinetown and the industrial areas between Pietermaritzburg and Durban. Sir, this is an exceedingly serious picture, and the thing that concerns me is the acceleration which has forced the department to bring forward its programme. Previously the Albert Falls Dam was due to be commenced in 1975, and it has been found necessary, in view of the escalating demand in the Durban area, to commence it some three years earlier. I believe it has become essential now to look outside the catchment of the Umgeni River for supplementary supplies of water to be introduced into the catchment. One of the proposals that has been made is that the Mooi River should be dammed and that the water should then be supplied to the Umgeni River by means of a tunnel underneath the Karkloof Range. Sir, I mention this because I recently attended a symposium in Mooi River on the Tugela Basin, where it was pointed out that this Tugela Basin is in fact an absolutely unique geological feature. Nowhere in the civilized world is there a basin which offers the same opportunities for the development as this Tugela Basin does, by reason of the fact that the whole basin is canted away from the sea, so that as you go towards the coast, the tributaries of the Tugela River are found at a higher and higher elevation, so that it is possible by means of diversion works to divert all the major tributaries of the Tugela River back into the head-waters of the Tugela River and, in fact, to make water available for pumping over the Berg to the Vaal, in quantities far in excess of the amount of 60 million gallons a day which is proposed in the initial stages of the Tugela/Vaal scheme. Sir, I believe it would be a pity if the immediate shortsighted view were taken that the Mooi River should be allocated for supplementation of the Umgeni when you have a position here which, as I say, is absolutely unique. There is nowhere that we know of in the whole of the developed world which offers the same opportunities for construction work and diversion work, which will enable the total water resources of the Tugela River to be diverted to the headwaters and used time and time again, through various dams, for the generation of power, still leaving at the coast the total resources of water available which by means of pipelines can be spread up and down the coast to cities such as Durban, Richards Bay and other areas where water is going to be needed. Sir, a further interesting point which emerged from the discussion of the Tugela Basin, and one which would make the whole scheme practicable and economic, is the fact that the water can be used for power generation. The discussions revolved around a preliminary estimate which put the installed capacity of power which could be generated at 3 400 megawatts, which compares with the TVA Scheme in America, a major power generation scheme of 3 500 megawatts, the Snowy Mountain Scheme in Australia, of 3 800 megawatts, Kariba of 1 200 megawatts and the Cabora-Bassa Scheme of 4 000 megawatts. I mention this because it is the policy of the department that whenever a dam is constructed for Escom purposes, the total cost is recovered, so if you engage upon the scheme in the Tugela Basin, you can generate this enormous amount of power and the total cost to the country will be recovered from the sale of power. It also has the additional advantage that being a hydro-electric generating scheme, it will meet the demands of Escom for peak power periods As you know, the advantage of the hydro system is that it can be switched on and it can generate power very quickly and at the same time it has this useful function that it builds up very quickly indeed; it can meet peak power demands without having to run all the time. The Escom policy is that there should be the thermal power stations which will provide the base load, and to meet the need of the peak periods, i.e. in afternoons and evenings, etc., you can put in at lower cost standby plants of hydro power which virtually by 1995 will meet the needs of Escom in the national grid. I have here a paper which was prepared for this symposium by two members of the hon. the Minister’s staff, by one of the ESC engineers and the senior geologist in the geological survey department. It is a vastly challenging thought that we can develop, with imagination and with the use of the money we have, something which will be a source of the utmost and most intense interest to engineering faculties throughout the world, because as I say we have here a unique construction. We can generate power by running water from the Mooi River through the Bushmans and the Little Bushmans and the Little Tugela into the Tugela; we can generate power to lift the water over the Berg, so we will not have to bring in power or use other resources of power. We can actually generate the power as the water flows from the upper tributaries down into the head-waters of Tugela to take it over the Berg itself. It will make an immense amount of water available to the Vaal River and to the Vaal Triangle. I know it is something which is being investigated and I would welcome a statement from the hon. the Minister as to what sort of priority this programme can expect to enjoy, because it is a colossal scheme. There are some seven or eight major power dams proposed in the bed of the Tugela River and there is a total of 15 dams which can be built, diverting water from the tributaries up into the Tugela and then on the course of the Tugela River. Some of them will be in the Bantu areas. This is a point we have raised before—the question of how our relationships will be adjusted with the Bantu areas, etc. I do not want to enter into that now but I mention merely that some of those major dams will be in the territory of the Zulu Authority. The costs are estimated at something like R385 million. I wish to speak later on the Estimates of Expenditure and the amounts of money spent by the Department of Water Affairs. This amount of R385 million, as I say, will be totally recovered by means of the payments which Escom will make for the power generated. I hope the Minister will give us a word of hope. I first heard this feature of the Tugela Basin mentioned in 1968 at an engineering conference in Durban. People are now slowly moving into the investigative work which will have to take place, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that he will assign it a very high priority indeed, because it is a challenging concept, and, as I say, it will be a point of immense interest to the engineering faculties throughout the world. I should like to think that we will make the fullest use of the opportunities we have.

The hon. member for South Coast and the hon. member for Piketberg discussed the irrigation policy in a very interesting way and it was pleasant to listen to the discussion. The hon. member for Piketberg and the hon. member for Mooi River also discussed certain streams and areas in their part of the world, but I shall not respond to what they said in that connection. I am standing up to pay tribute to a small group of officials, about 30 of them, of the Department of Irrigation, You know, Sir, early in January this year, we had extraordinary washaways in the vicinity of Vioolsdrif. Those washaways not only carried away the national road and a great deal of good land, but also partly washed away the big irrigation canal at Vioolsdrif. Hon. members know what it can mean if the main canal of an irrigation scheme in the hot and dry parts suddenly goes out of action. That is what happened there. Together with the washaway damage the area was menaced by the danger of the remaining products being scorched in the searing heat at that time of the year. The damage to the irrigation canal was extensive. I cannot neglect to say that the action taken by the Department of Irrigation was simply wonderful. Three days after the washaways had occurred the big machinery and the people of the Department of Water Works were operative in restoring those canals. Why I want to mention these people, and why I am paying tribute to them, is by virtue of the responsible and unselfish way in which those officials and employees of Water Affairs worked uninterruptedly day and night, over week-ends, Sundays and Mondays, to have those canals restored. They achieved the almost impossible by the water flowing again within three weeks after the canal had been washed away. I think it was a rare achievement which the most optimistic of our people did not expect could happen. I therefore want to pay tribute to those people for the unselfish way in which they did the work. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the Secretary for the department on the fact that they could inspire people to work in that way—and I believe this was as a result of the right inspiration coming from the top. It was wonderful to see, and I think they have every reason to be proud of their people, particularly that small group of people. I regard it as a particular honour to pay tribute to them.

I also want to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister and the Secretary assisting him for the exceptional action taken in connection with the Springbok regional water planning scheme. Hon. members know that there we found ourselves in a very difficult position. The position is that that town, and the surrounding towns such as Nababeep, Okiep and Carolusberg, landed up in a very serious position. We had unparalleled droughts in those areas this year, while the level of source from which we obtained the water slowly dropped until it has now reached an absolutely dangerous low level. Unless a miracle occurs or unless it rains before September of this year, a tremendous catastrophe can hit those parts. We want to thank the hon. the Minister and the Secretary for the exceptional steps that are being taken. I want to say at once that I do not lose any sleep over the matter, because we are of good faith that it will rain, and I have also come to have so much faith and confidence in the action taken by the Minister and his department that, in my opinion, there is hardly a situation they will not be able to handle if pressed by an emergency. I want to tell them that in the North-West we are particularly appreciative of what they did in that connection, and we want to give them the assurance that it is not overlooked, that it is noticed. Therefore it is also my pleasure to thank them for that.

In conclusion I want to say a few words about the distribution of the Orange River’s water. In recent years the Orange has virtually stopped flowing every year and caused tremendous damage. Now—and this is something we are very grateful for—with the introduction into service of the Verwoerd Dam, that situation has been resolved and our farmers again feel safe. The financial position and the security position of the people living on the lower reaches of the Orange immediately improved, to such an extent that they can now plan ahead and decide what they want to plant and when they want to plant it. Now that we have really lasting water for the first time and can plan ahead, that area is showing more than ever before what its production: capability is. We know that that area’s production is virtually restricted to the basin of the Orange because the water outside costs a great deal and therefore cannot be usefully employed. With its wonderful climatic conditions, an important agricultural production sector will develop there in the basin of the Orange. We are also glad that the Minister has sent a commission to make a survey of that area to align the water supply with the future needs. We also want to ask the Minister to treat the estimate, which has been made, fairly carefully. The department’s officials are doing excellent work, but as hon. members will realize it is a particularly difficult task to allocate water for an undeveloped area. I would like to believe that those gentlemen can in fact calculate approximately how much water will be necessary for agriculture. However, what they cannot possibly determine is how much water will be needed for industry in future, since it is an absolutely undeveloped area with a very rich mineral potential. We know that new copper mines are continually opening and that new mineral development is continually taking place. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to budget amply for that when he calculates the distribution of water for the future. If we were to look at the growth of mines and undertakings in Namaqualand and the North-West in the past two or three years, we would realize how absolutely essential it is for ample estimates for its future water needs. I can tell the hon. the Minister that his officials have simply accepted no comments from outsiders, having themselves inspected and examined everything. They have done thorough work, but as I have already said, and also explained to them, the present consumption of Springbok, Nababeep and Okiep is perhaps a trifle in comparison with what the future consumption will be when the new copper mines, which are already being established, and the new areas which are now being prospected for copper and other base metals, are opened.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House are very happy to see that the hon. member for Namaqualand has fully recovered and is making his full contribution to this House once more. We were particularly pleased to hear him plead the case of his constituency in this debate, because we know he represents a very dry area. I hope that his plea will not go unheard.

Successive Members of Parliament for the Albany constituency have pleaded for water in the Lower Fish from the Orange River scheme. I do not want to go into this aspect of it today, because it seems that we will eventually get water from this scheme. What I would like to know is whether there have been any inquiries through the hon. the Minister’s department from his collegue’s department, i.e. the Department of Bantu Administration, as to the supply of water to the proposed Bantu township that is to be built at Committees on the east banks of the Fish River? The township which is going to be built there will require a large amount of water. I would like to know whether any negotiations have been taking place in this connection. I would like to speak in support of an appeal that has been made to the hon. the Minister by the hon. member for Somerset East and myself in support of various local authorities in the Eastern Cape Province. That is namely the appeal that the Bushmans River also be included in the Orange River Scheme, not necessarily immediately. We believe that it is necessary for that area not only from an agricultural point of view but from a regional and coastal development point of view as well. We have very long tidal rivers in that area and very popular holiday resorts. But there are no large water schemes as such and the towns or villages themselves cancan afford to build individual water schemes. In these various memoranda one will find that this thread runs through the whole lot. But I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to a report produced by the Department of Planning last year, viz. the investigation of the subsidiary committee into river mouths, lagoons and vleis. It dealt with the area between the Baakensriver and the Kowie River where there are numbers of these holidays resorts which are now rapidly expanding with the construction of route 45, the provincial coastal road between Port Elizabeth and East London. This is now extended as far as Port Alfred. The popularity of the holiday resorts of Cannon Rocks, Boknes, Bushman’s Riviermond, Kenton-on-Sea and Port Alfred and even of Kasouga and the Fish River to the East is expanding at an alarming rate. With the exception of Cannon Rocks and Port Alfred all these resorts are entirely relying on tank water. The hon. the Minister would probably have heard that during the drought of 1967 holiday makers at these resorts were buying water at the rate R11 per thousand gallons. In a general recommendation in this report on page 23, paragraph 4.11, it is recommended that—

Since the publication of this report these local authorities have become exceptionally interested in the regional water scheme and we feel that the co-ordinating factor here could be the Department of Water Affairs and the possible inclusion of the Bushmans River Valley which is the main river within that area in the Orange River scheme. While we propose this, we believe that it will not be an expensive scheme to include. In the Bushman’s River Valley there are already numerous privately owned weirs which can store the water if it is let down the valley. The distance from the Fish River/Lake Mentz Canal I believe is very short. This appeal is being made now because that canal is under construction. Canal construction is terrifically expensive. It is more expensive when one has to bring heavy machinery and plant to a site on another date. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister that in considering this appeal he should also consider the possibility of either building a canal or a pipeline connecting—I believe this is only approximately 5 miles long—the Fish River/ Sunday’s Canal with the Bushmans River, even if it is not going to be included at this stage. While the plant and the construction works are there this connecting link could be built even if it has to remain sealed for a number of years until the Bushmans River is included.

In these memoranda the Nuwejaars Dam at Alicedale is mentioned. This is a Railway dam. I asked the hon. the Minister of Transport on 18th August, 1970 (col. 1949 of Hansard) if he would consider handing over that canal to the Department of Water Affairs. He replied that although the main line between Port Elizabeth and Cradock was completely dieselized and that no steam engines were used there, he required it for the Grahamstown branch line and for the village of Alicedale. I understand that the Grahamstown branch line is shortly to be dieselized as well. The village of Alicedale is extremely small. In any case, it is written into all our Water Acts that the roadways get preference in all our water schemes. I should like this hon. Minister to appeal once to the hon. the Minister of Transport to allow us to use some of the water in this dam for other purposes than just for the town of Alicedale and the few steam engines. I can assure the hon. the Minister that during the protracted drought over the past number of years which has broke only recently. that was the fullest dam in the whole of the Eastern Cape. Not a drop of that water was used for agricultural purposes. I believe that the time has come, specially with the dieselization of the Grahamstown line in the offing, that this hon. Minister can once again approach the hon. the Minister of Transport in that connection with a view to taking over that dam.

Do you want it for domestic use?

No, for agricultural use. It could toe included as a first phase, because the soil of the Bushman’s River is extremely rich and the Nuwejaars River was the main feeding tributary. There is an excellent catchment. Since the dam was built, it has not been used in such a way as to balance the flow of the river and thereby keeping the weirs full. Some people estimate that there are 4 000 ha of good soil and others estimate that there are 6 000 ha of very good soil available in the Bushman’s River Valley. A lot of it is being farmed at this stage under irrigation. Let me come to the point of view of the city of Grahamstown. They have already requested that water be made available to them from the Lower Fish River. But if water in the Bushman’s River can be made available to them, it will be far more easily available to Grahamstown as it is nearer and it will be easier to pump across. The Bushman’s River passes very near the Settlers’ Dam, which is one of the dams of the Grahamstown Municipality. If Grahamstown does develop as an industrial area, which we hope it will do in the future—it has been declared a growth point—we sincerely hope that there will be sufficient water for the growth that we hope will come there. I know the hon. the Minister is considering this. He has informed me of this in writing. I sincerely hope that he will consider it very seriously in the light of the additional facts that I have made available to him today. He need not necessarily answer fully in this debate. But in the course of time, and when he has time to study all the documents that were supplied to him, and has consulted his department, we would appreciate his very sympathetic attention and an answer in the affirmative.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Albany will excuse me if I do not respond to the argument he has put forward. I myself would like to bring a few matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Firstly I want to associate myself with the thanks expressed toy previous speakers for the arrangements etc., with respect to the H.F. Verwoerd Dam. Recently we have noticed that several scientists and other groups of people visited South Africa with the specific purpose of acquainting themselves with our irrigation methods to learn from us about certain irrigation activities. I feel that although we have come very far with our own development and the gathering of scientific knowledge, it is probably very important for us that international co-operation should be sought with a view to also enabling us to obtain information from people beyond our borders. We know that shortly the hon. the Minister is leaving on an overseas trip and we hope he will toe able to tell us if there has been any progress, to what extent international cooperation already exists and how the exchange of knowledge is taking place. We have now called a research committee into being, and it would be a good thing if we could exchange scientific knowledge with each other on an international level. Sir, I now come to the second matter I want to broach. With respect to the Vaal River—I am now speaking in particular of that area between the Vaal Dam weir and the Vaalharts weir—I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to have us revise the water allocation from this area as far as riparian owners are concerned. We have the strange state of affairs whereby certain of the people in that area fall under the Water Act of 1956 as far as the abstraction of water is concerned—or at least those people do who live below the Vaalharts weir—and the other people still fall under the 1934 Act. I have previously brought this matter to the attention of the department; one can say that an agricultural water problem is developing in that area. With the allocation of water in terms of the 1934 Act it was laid down how much water can be abstracted. But at the same time, and also subsequently, land was allocated, whether by the old Department of Lands, the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure or whatever the department might have been, even by outside departments. A farm was allocated and it was stated: “This farm has 50 morgen of irrigation land”. It was also determined what the agricultural economic value of that 50 morgen of irrigation land was and whether it was an economic unit. Now we find that on the basis of abstraction in terms of the 1934 Act, the regulations and what the Minister must now do with respect to the Vaal River’s water, the people cannot make a living on that land if their additional water is reduced to 20 or 15 morgen. The allocation was previously perhaps 50 morgen. Now that land is simply no longer an economic unit. The matter has begun to assume serious proportions. I know the department is at present involved in serious court cases, and I believe there are still going to be more such cases. I believe it will be necessary for us to take into account the effect of the 1934 Act and how it differs from the 1956 Act, and see how we can resolve the situation there.

Then there is a third matter. I can assure the hon. the Minister that I am very grateful for what I now want to mention. I should like to thank him and the department very heartily for having agreed to incorporate the Wentzel Dam and the irrigation scheme at Schweizer-Reneke as a State water scheme. The complex has furnished us with tremendous problems in the past. I know it is proposed that the takeover by the department will be on 30th June of this year. Because this has caused us so many problems in the past, we are grateful that we are no longer going to be involved there with the same problems we had in the past. But I think that if the department is taking over the Wentzel Dam it would be just as well, since we are thanking the department for it at this stage, to simply ask the department at the same time to also give attention to possibly increasing the height of the Wentzel Dam wall. The Western Transvaal, and particularly that portion of the Western Transvaal, is not very well endowed with water, but we do nevertheless have the Harts River, in which this dam is situated. If the dam wall can be increased a few feet the capacity of the dam will definitely be increased and the water which would, in any case, have flowed past will not flow away uselessly, but be caught up in the Wentzel Dam. The area around Schweizer-Reneke, and even the urban area, is not well endowed with subterranean water either, as is probably the case in other constituencies.